Cobb: If I can go back again, the acknowledgemnent that it can't be for mere policy disagreements....the president's letter does not reflect that, and the court must be highly deferential. But that does't mean an inquiry doesn't take place...
Replies
Ask no questions, you’ll get no lies
aug 29, 2025, 3:46 pm • 3 0 • view
Roth: Way I read cases is that when the president makes decision that on its face is valid, you don't probe the motivations. That's Trump v. Hawaii. We litigated that
aug 29, 2025, 3:45 pm • 146 11 • view
Here’s where we need to cut to the chase, charge John Roberts with treason Dispense with this Unitary Executive nonsense that’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL
aug 29, 2025, 7:16 pm • 0 0 • view
He is not a fucking king. A blind man can see the reason behind this. He's harped on it for the entire time he's been in office. The SC won't let him fire Powell so he's going after the others.
aug 29, 2025, 3:48 pm • 12 1 • view
Yes even in trump v us the entire court said presidents weren’t above the law.
aug 29, 2025, 3:50 pm • 2 0 • view
Cobb says she doesn't have further questions. Lowell pops up for the last word on several points.
aug 29, 2025, 3:46 pm • 150 14 • view
Lowell: Gov. takes the position that president does have Article II removal power here but chose to frame it as cause. Also takes view that "cause" can be "any reason" to call into question a person's fitness....What does that mean? Any reason?
aug 29, 2025, 3:51 pm • 196 18 • view
Lowell highlights that the breadth of the government's definition of "cause" renders the word essentially meaningless.
aug 29, 2025, 3:51 pm • 239 24 • view
There are centuries of common-law authorities on what constitutes “cause” for terminating an employee.
aug 29, 2025, 3:52 pm • 10 0 • view
Lowell: Government complains that no explanation has been given, but the briefing in this litigation is not the place for that.
aug 29, 2025, 3:52 pm • 187 17 • view
Lowell: There was no notice/opportunity to be heard. First Pulte does it privately to the AG on the 15th, then does it publicly on the 20th. That is supposed to satisfy due process? I don't think so
aug 29, 2025, 3:54 pm • 257 33 • view
Lowell: Need to point out contradictions in position of the government as to remedy. On one hand say that she had opportunity to be heard but didn't respond. On other hand say she has opportunity here and could put explanation in her brief.
aug 29, 2025, 3:57 pm • 180 16 • view
Pulte has done it privately to the AG on others for the exact same thing. Dems need to start looking at Rs' mortgage apps.
aug 29, 2025, 4:00 pm • 11 1 • view
💯
aug 29, 2025, 4:48 pm • 1 0 • view
I thought same. Many discrepancies to be found. Including R’s who vote in two locations, or split.
aug 29, 2025, 4:07 pm • 3 0 • view
Exactly! e.g. Mark Meadows
aug 29, 2025, 4:08 pm • 4 0 • view
Roth briefly responds to Lowell's remarks. We're here in equity, Roth says. They need to show why it would matter if she had opportunity to speak to president, but she hasn't. That's why explanation matters
aug 29, 2025, 3:59 pm • 138 11 • view
Why would she want to speak to the president? The person making the charge is Pulte. Due process means defending herself against him with a neutral third party making the decision, the courts because of the constitutional implications. IANAL, so maybe I'm missing something?
aug 29, 2025, 4:02 pm • 11 0 • view
Lowell made that exact same argument - that she answer Pulte.
aug 29, 2025, 4:12 pm • 9 0 • view
Does Roth uphold racism?
aug 29, 2025, 7:18 pm • 0 0 • view
Roth then addresses Lowell's argument about the Dellinger case. Under Dellinger, that was stayed, he reminds Judge Cobb. He was allowed to remain but then DC Cir stayed that and he dropped case.
aug 29, 2025, 4:01 pm • 129 10 • view
Lowell and Roth are done, and Judge Cobb turns to scheduling matters. She says the parties should discuss what they want to do [re: briefing], will give them opportunity to supplement if needed. Lowell to file reply by Tuesday.
aug 29, 2025, 4:03 pm • 184 19 • view
aug 29, 2025, 4:02 pm • 0 0 • view
Seems it’s as simple as Trump doesn’t want the public to know if there is cause or not. She’s just being fired because he wants to—so he can take more control of the board, interest rates are lowered to Trump’s satisfaction, and Pulte sells more homes.
aug 29, 2025, 4:08 pm • 23 0 • view
Cook is being fired because she’s a black woman and Trump hates black women, and black Americans, with the force of million racist suns.
aug 29, 2025, 5:09 pm • 15 2 • view
usually, it's the president who asks for a meeting, not the person being (metaphorically) executed without trial ...
aug 29, 2025, 4:05 pm • 17 0 • view
Great job, Anna!
aug 29, 2025, 3:59 pm • 4 0 • view
I guess lowell doesn’t think twitter fights constitute notice and opportunity to be heard.
aug 29, 2025, 8:10 pm • 0 0 • view
The govt argument seems aimed more at the supreme court. Cook may win this battle (or maybe not), but the war seems unwinnable with this SCOTUS.
aug 29, 2025, 3:53 pm • 8 0 • view
It’s actually fascinating, because they explicitly said a month ago that Trump cannot fire Fed Governors. They were extremely clear on that. This case is likely going to get back to SCOTUS, and they are going to have to decide to either stand up to Trump and uphold their ruling or go back on it.
aug 29, 2025, 3:59 pm • 8 0 • view
So, if the lower courts disallow this firing on that basis, SCOTUS should simply deny cert.
aug 29, 2025, 5:21 pm • 1 0 • view
Haha, that is not how they roll when it comes to daddy T.
aug 29, 2025, 5:28 pm • 1 0 • view
Yep, I can't remember if it Roberts or someone else but they recently singled out the Fed. I guess they could find T has cause....but it is all accusation, no indictment and certainly no conviction yet.
aug 29, 2025, 4:20 pm • 1 0 • view
If alleged misconduct from before being appointed to government service is disqualifying, he's got a lot more firing to do.
aug 29, 2025, 4:35 pm • 4 0 • view
Including himself
aug 29, 2025, 5:30 pm • 5 0 • view
Can’t for the life of me imagine who you might be referring to. 🙄
aug 29, 2025, 7:45 pm • 1 0 • view
unless scotus changes course, what it said in the two cases Roth brought up about article II authority, then the unique character and position that the FED has/enjoys in terms of governance & most importantly independence then trump should lose
aug 29, 2025, 4:00 pm • 2 0 • view
I feel like in that case, they were more concerned about the fed chair. In any case, they haven't had a problem reversing themselves when the need arises (fear of Trump).
aug 29, 2025, 4:04 pm • 1 0 • view
I agree that they could change their tune. but there was no distinction between a board member and the chair. the FED Reserve Act makes no distinction either. Can only be removed for cause
aug 29, 2025, 4:06 pm • 1 0 • view
Well at this point I'll consider it a win if it even gets to SCOTUS. Everyone he targets needs to adopt the strategy he uses: drag it out as long as possible.
aug 29, 2025, 4:08 pm • 1 0 • view
They’re going to use this case to redefine “cause” in every way possible. Including the 4th amendment. If “cause” is re-interpreted by the regime through the courts, they’ll wield it against the people, starting with their opposition.
aug 29, 2025, 6:58 pm • 1 0 • view
Does that mean we're fucked, that Trump wins again?
aug 29, 2025, 3:57 pm • 0 0 • view
I think the fact the DOJ is using "maybe if you plead nicely POTUS will have mercy on you" arguments IN COURT means we're already pretty cooked
aug 29, 2025, 4:46 pm • 1 0 • view
Is there a presumption that the government has to show cause? To what body? Congress or courts? Is the government treating this as a military relief for cause due to a loss of trust and confidence? The government isn’t a military dictatorship.
aug 29, 2025, 4:00 pm • 1 0 • view
Seriously, fuck you buddy
aug 29, 2025, 3:46 pm • 11 0 • view
"For cause" doesn't mean much if the President is the sole decider of what constitutes cause.
aug 29, 2025, 3:50 pm • 13 0 • view
This decision is not, on its face, valid.
aug 29, 2025, 3:57 pm • 1 0 • view
Fsck off you don't probe the motivations. That might be the case in *normal* administrations but there is a lot of water under bridge here, not least Trump and Pulte's own public comments.
aug 29, 2025, 3:58 pm • 1 0 • view
MUST IT, THOUGH, COBB? MUST THE COURT BE HIGHLY DEFERENTIAL? SEEMS LIKE AFTER A DECADE OF FIVE-ALARM FIRES MAYBE WE *DON'T* GO THE HIGHLY DEFERENTIAL ROUTE?
aug 29, 2025, 3:53 pm • 5 0 • view