Supreme Court Weighs in on Trump's Feud with Federal Reserve
In a surprise twist, the US Supreme Court has shown signs of standing up to President Donald Trump over his attack on the Federal Reserve. The central bank's independence is under scrutiny as Trump continues to bully and threaten Fed officials, including Jerome Powell, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Trump's tactics, which include labeling Powell "stupid" and threatening to fire him if he doesn't lower interest rates quickly enough, have been met with skepticism from the justices. In oral arguments on Wednesday, the court's six conservative justices appeared resoundingly skeptical of Trump's firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a move that could trigger a recession.
While some experts interpret this as a sign that the court is checking executive authority and limiting Trump's power, others argue that it may be a special exception for the Federal Reserve at a time when other government agencies are under threat. The Fed, created to be a quasi-private, independent entity, has been protected from politics and is supposed to be protected from being politicized.
The court's rationale seems to be driven by economic concerns, with economists testifying that Fed independence is crucial for maintaining long-term economic stability. Justice Amy Coney Barrett brought up the fact that "we have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is [fired], that it could trigger a recession".
Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns about setting a precedent, questioning whether they would be allowing Trump's appointees to be removed for cause in future administrations. However, the court's stance on the Fed appears to be different.
The stakes are high, with the Federal Reserve's ability to set interest rates being a delicate balancing act between inflation and unemployment. Any disruption to this balance could have significant economic consequences.
While some experts welcome the court's resistance to Trump's executive power, others worry that it may be an overcorrection, allowing Trump to continue wielding significant influence elsewhere in government. The question remains whether the court will issue a ruling that sets a clear precedent or merely sends a message to Trump about the Fed's independence.
In a surprise twist, the US Supreme Court has shown signs of standing up to President Donald Trump over his attack on the Federal Reserve. The central bank's independence is under scrutiny as Trump continues to bully and threaten Fed officials, including Jerome Powell, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Trump's tactics, which include labeling Powell "stupid" and threatening to fire him if he doesn't lower interest rates quickly enough, have been met with skepticism from the justices. In oral arguments on Wednesday, the court's six conservative justices appeared resoundingly skeptical of Trump's firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a move that could trigger a recession.
While some experts interpret this as a sign that the court is checking executive authority and limiting Trump's power, others argue that it may be a special exception for the Federal Reserve at a time when other government agencies are under threat. The Fed, created to be a quasi-private, independent entity, has been protected from politics and is supposed to be protected from being politicized.
The court's rationale seems to be driven by economic concerns, with economists testifying that Fed independence is crucial for maintaining long-term economic stability. Justice Amy Coney Barrett brought up the fact that "we have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is [fired], that it could trigger a recession".
Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns about setting a precedent, questioning whether they would be allowing Trump's appointees to be removed for cause in future administrations. However, the court's stance on the Fed appears to be different.
The stakes are high, with the Federal Reserve's ability to set interest rates being a delicate balancing act between inflation and unemployment. Any disruption to this balance could have significant economic consequences.
While some experts welcome the court's resistance to Trump's executive power, others worry that it may be an overcorrection, allowing Trump to continue wielding significant influence elsewhere in government. The question remains whether the court will issue a ruling that sets a clear precedent or merely sends a message to Trump about the Fed's independence.
The Fed is like the one institution that can withstand Trump's tantrums? It's about time someone stood up for economic sanity over politics. I mean, who needs stability when you've got tweets to distract from the real issues? 
And let's be real, if Cook gets fired, it'll just be a minor recession... or so we're told 
. The real question is what happens next, will the court establish some precedent for Fed independence or just send Trump a nice, passive-aggressive memo? 
what's next?! 
and from what i've heard, the economists are really on top of things when it comes to understanding the economy. maybe they can help us figure out how to get out of this mess 
check out this article from vox about it: 
I'm kinda surprised by this move from the Supreme Court. Trump's been going after the Fed for ages and now they're throwing their weight behind it? It feels like a power play, but at the same time, I can see why the justices are concerned about setting a precedent. If they let Trump bully the Fed, what's to stop him from taking on other agencies next?
I'm loving how the Supreme Court is finally holding President Trump accountable for his behavior towards the Federal Reserve 
. I mean, come on, threatening someone you employ? It's just basic decency 
. But what really gets me is that he thinks he can bully them into doing what he wants 
. Newsflash, Mr Trump: they're not some pup to be trained with treats and praise 
. The Fed has a job to do, and it's not about pleasing you or your ego 
. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett being all like "hey, we're not going to set a precedent here" 
is music to my ears 
. And let's be real, if they were going to start firing people over their opinions, it'd be chaos 
.
. The economy would collapse if we let that happen 
. And now the Supreme Court stepping in like that? It seems like they're trying to send a message about keeping the Fed independent, which is good for the economy and all that 
. Like, what's up with these interest rates, right? They can't just keep going up and down like a yo-yo 
.
. But hey, at least we can all agree that inflation and unemployment are no joke 
.