Courts have interpreted that they have the power to under article 3 to interpret laws and terms, but it's not specifically outlined.

Article 3 is both very specific and completely inadequate for what exists today. Again, courts have been allowed to have way, way too much power. Trump is fixing that.

So courts have said, trust us, we the experts. And that has led us awry.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Courts have interpreted that they have the power to under article 3 to interpret laws and terms, but it's not specifically outlined.

Article 3 is both very specific and completely inadequate for what exists today. Again, courts have been allowed to have way, way too much power. Trump is fixing that.

So courts have said, trust us, we the experts. And that had led us awry.

---

Chevron deference is dead, man. If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go...because man, they're gone.

So, you are right, Trump is fixing the problems between power sharing between the executive and the courts. Just not in the way that you are thinking about it.

I would much rather have the agencies fight the companies they "regulate" (ahem, blackmail) in court for interpretation than have the Executive Agencies get to define all of the terms that "are not specifically outlined".

In this case, the mortgage fraudster will have her day in court, as she should have.

But, "for cause" is going to mean a lot different thing in DC district court than the courts of appeals, me think.

In the instance of Ms. Cook, I specifically interpret "for cause" to not only include lying on mortgage documents in violation of law; but specifically in her instance, said "lying" or "mistake" (either one) is directly related to the very institution she is charged with regulating.

Anyone who is appointed by a President in a regulatory and supposedly non-partisan position had better be:
a. Competent in said position of responsibility.
b. Squeaky clean with regard to personal interactions in the field they are regulating.

Ms. Cook horribly fails the second requirement. Imo, this is one of those instances where even the appearance of a conflict of interest can result in lasting damage to the institution. Ms. Cook has progressed far beyond an appearance of conflict. She's neck deep, and will likely not only lose her job, but face prosecution.

jrdaustin said:

---

In the instance of Ms. Cook, I specifically interpret "for cause" to not only include lying on mortgage documents in violation of law; but specifically in her instance, said "lying" or "mistake" (either one) is directly related to the very institution she is charged with regulating.

Anyone who is appointed by a President in a regulatory and supposedly non-partisan position had better be:
a. Competent in said position of responsibility.
b. Squeaky clean with regard to personal interactions in the field they are regulating.

Ms. Cook horribly fails the second requirement. Imo, this is one of those instances where even the appearance of a conflict of interest can result in lasting damage to the institution. Ms. Cook has progressed far beyond an appearance of conflict. She's neck deep, and will likely not only lose her job, but face prosecution.

---

You don't put a man or woman in charge of the IRS if he/she owes $ millions in back taxes.

You don't put a man or woman in charge of the DEA if he / she has been busted selling drugs.

You don't put a man or woman in charge of the SEC if they have been reprimanded by FINRA.

And you don't put a woman on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank when she has committed bank fraud.

Pretty cut and dried in my mind. If the president can, by statute, fire "for cause", then bank fraud has to be "for cause" when employed by a bank.

I am not relying on Chevron and you are conflating two separate issues.

Trump is not interpreting the vagueness to extend the REACH of the law. Congress failed or intentionally did not define "for cause" as it is pretty well understood.

For cause can include incompetence and Trump would be allowed to fire Powell if he so chooses, and he may if Powell tries to finish out his term post chairmanship.

Let me know where in article 3 you get that SCOTUS or any other court is tasked with defining intent, terms, etc?

Chevron said that Congress needs to be more specific and that the executive cannot simply make up regulations based on their interpretation of Congress. But it doesn't have the "power" to take Congress laws, makeup their own interpretation, then command the executive to follow it. Which is what the courts have been doing all over the place with Trump.

Roberts won't like that, but he is not much for following the Constitution regardless.

Quote:

---

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

---

Quote:

---

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

---

What does judicial power mean?

Well, guess who gets to interpret that? (Hint, it's in the second quote).

Based on my understanding, "Judicial Power" includes the right to interpret language in cases where there is a controversy, ie, disagreement, on what the words mean, by two different parties.

There is no justiciable dispute here. That's the point.

She can sue Trump for wrongful termination, discrimination, hostile workplace, whatever.

But she has no basis under the law nor Constitution to retain her position.

Edit to add: we both see same side of the coin, I am just making a point that too much deference is shown to the article 3 powers and much of it is based on the judiciary "giving" itself that power through its "interpretation" of the laws and the Constitution. Hell, there are several different factions regarding that last part represented at SCOTUS now.

Most all judges are lawyers and most lawyers are conceited aholes who believe themselves more knowledgeable on life in general but in particular the law.

But there are many folks who way better understand the law, the constitution, our history, and the collective history that must be considered to properly adjudicate things.

What we have now is a cancerous growth of a judiciary who have poor understanding of history and thus make huge mistakes out of arrogance in their rulings and in expanding their powers.

Time they get slapped back. Or they can be whittled down to one court, one justice and we can build it back up.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Chevron said that Congress needs to be more specific and that the executive cannot simply make up regulations based on their interpretation of Congress.

---

Not really. Chevron deference meant that, in the case that there was a term in legislation that was vague, the courts had to defer to the executive branch when the executive branch interpreted defined that term, as the agencies in the executive branch were considered to be the "experts" on the subject, and should be listened to.

Loper Bright said that no, the courts get to interpret vague language, and do not have to defer to the executive agencies when trying to interpret the law. If the agencies were such experts in the subject matter, they could explain it in the way an intelligent layperson could understand it. In my opinion, if you can't explain a very technical issue in layman's terms, you are not really an expert.

Quote:

---

But it doesn't have the "power" to take Congress laws, makeup their own interpretation, then command the executive to follow it. Which is what the courts have been doing all over the place with Trump.

---

Um, I disagree. As long as the court is interpreting words that are in the law. What is bad, like in Roe v Wade, is when the court just makes crap up. The biggest problem with Roe v Wade is that there is no right to privacy anywhere in the constitution. The courts just made it up. If the term "Privacy" existed anywhere in the constitution as amended, then Roe might not have been such a bad opinion.

Here, "for cause" is in the statute. If the law didn't say the president could fire a Fed Board Member "for cause", then this would be a whole different argument. But, the law says "for cause". The question is, and only is, what does "for cause" mean?

It is 100% of the job of the court to decide that. If congress doesn't like the court's decision, they can pass a law defining what "for cause" means, and the court can't override that, unless Congress' definition would put the law squarely contrary to the constitution.

I feel like I am living in Bizzarro world. Evil Superman must be just around the corner. I am so surprised that I am even having this conversation here.

But she is Black so she asserts discrimination regardless of any other reason. It is pathetic.

flown-the-coop said:

---

There is no justiciable dispute here. That's the point.

She can sue Trump for wrongful termination, discrimination, hostile workplace, whatever.

But she has no basis under the law nor Constitution to retain her position.

---

She could argue that "for cause" only means when she broke the law. That is a valid legal argument. Not a good one, not one she will win, but it is at least an argument.

flown-the-coop said:

---

So courts have said, trust us, we the experts. And that has led us awry.

---

Not nearly as bad as letting the man holding a brick outside of the shop store (Government agencies) telling us to trust them when they define what is or is not vandalism, just before the brick holder goes into the shop and ask for protection.

Because, that was where we were.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

There is no justiciable dispute here. That's the point.

She can sue Trump for wrongful termination, discrimination, hostile workplace, whatever.

But she has no basis under the law nor Constitution to retain her position.

---

She could argue that "for cause" only means when she broke the law. That is a valid legal argument. Not a good one, not one she will win, but it is at least an argument.

---

She can argue that in a civil suit for wrongful termination.

She has no standing to argue the terminology here.

And are the courts going to define for cause once and for all? Each time? Only in regards to Trump? What legal threshold do you seek?

Again, if she doesn't like being fired, she cannot just keep showing up at her office. If she doesn't, arrest her for trespassing.

Do you work for a company who fired someone for cause and the company just let them come back to work whilst you have a debate about what constitutes cause?

And you cannot quote prior cases regarding what role the courts have when they ruled that they themselves magically have that power.

flown-the-coop said:

---

And you cannot quote prior cases regarding what role the courts have when they ruled that they themselves magically have that power.

---

Yeah, well, the constitution is so meta in that way, man. So, yes, I can.

So for the @jpodhoretz and everyone else on the Commentary podcast:

Trump fired Lisa Cook "For Cause" -- in line with the Supreme Court's recent decision. He did NOT fire her in contravention of that decision. The statute says members of the Fed Board of Governors can be…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 26, 2025

Shipwrecked seems to have a pretty good take on things (I.e. I tend to agree with everything he wrote in that tweet).

"For cause" is not a black & white legal definition. It's a judgment call. Now, it's best that the cause not be discriminatory.

Any employee of mine that touches money has credit checks run on them routinely.

People bad with their own money are disastrous with other people's money.

People who sacrifice ethics for minor personal gain surely throw ethics aside when the stakes are higher.

Yep, hopefully Trump or the FDIC administrator has had her electronic devices de-activated, and removed access. She can file an appeal to the MSPB, or maybe an EEOC claim if she wants to play the race/sex game.

She's fired though, end of story. She's very unlikely to get that position back/be re-instated.

Putting the specifics of her and Trump's goals aside, the Fed should fall under the legislative branch. Interest rate changes are effectively tax changes, which should require congressional approval that the Fed can advise on and execute but should not have unilateral authority to change. Allowing the fed unfettered ability to change interest rates is no different than if we allowed the fed now to change the income tax brackets as they please to achieve some fiscal goal. Plus if someone wants to make unwise changes that affect taxpayer lives they should pay for it at the ballot box.

Flashback: Fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook said in 2020 that Donald Trump was "definitely a fascist."

This is who was in charge of our nation's monetary policypic.twitter.com/iWawkhF31d

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 26, 2025

Unhinged *****. Bye.

Well, at least she has pearls to clutch. Maybe she can now help her European Friend with their finances.

Amazing. And, note that Trump will essentially be up to 4/12 if he can get Kugler and Cook's replacements confirmed, and there is a 'centrist' as well so pushing toward 50/50.

Implications of Trump attempting to fire FOMC voting member Lisa D. Cook

There are 12 voting members of the FOMC, 7 governors and 5 regional bank presidents.

Adriana D. Kugler, who recently resigned, was a governor. Her replacement will be appointed by Trump.

Michelle W.…

— Kashyap Sriram (@kashyap286) August 26, 2025

I again disclaim understanding all the links between bonds, interest rates, mortgages etc, but I am always happy to see rank partisan idiot democrats gone, from any position. I just can assume that since democrats are fuming this is all a good thing:

If only Democrats were as mad at Adriana Kugler for quitting the Fed board and handing it over to Trump as they are at attacks on 'Fed independence.' pic.twitter.com/VwQeZxvoKn

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) August 6, 2025

Adriana Kugler just resigned from the Fed.

She was handpicked by Chuck Schumer, the same guy blocking Trump from making appointments.

Now Trump gets to fill her seat. That’s what we call a reversal, Chuck. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Working people might finally catch a break on interest rates! pic.twitter.com/VS2AssrKuC

— Desiree (@DesireeAmerica4) August 1, 2025

Pocahontas is crusading against @pulte. After melting down on MSNBC, she ran to CNN and used the same script.

Why doesn't Warren want blatant fraud exposed? Especially by someone working at the Federal Reserve?

Weird, I think this reaction warrants a closer look into her past. https://t.co/RSYGS8ymSA pic.twitter.com/A7dS8EHQap

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 27, 2025

The Party demands different treatment. They're The Party, after all.

Ita understandable why Spreading bull would not see the issue of a public servant lieing on mortgage forms and applications.

Charles Payne (Fox Bidness) just brought up that under Biden admin that Pocahontas was behind chasing off 3 Fed reserve governors over insider trading and similar allegations.

I mean, it doesn't get more hypocritical. Biden can chase off 3 because Warren says so but Trump firing one for blatant mortgage fraud is a constitutional crisis.

Any idea Congress should have fed reserve oversight is asinine. Warren shows clearly why that's a terrible
Idea.

So…. Is she gone or not? Trump says she's fired. She says she's not going anywhere. The Fed says she's still there.

"A Federal Reserve spokesperson has indicated that from the central bank's perspective, Cook's status as a governor is unchanged. The Fed, which is designed to be independent from political influence, will wait for a court ruling to determine the outcome."

I guess there will be a court that will ultimately have to decide? Is she still there until that decision?

I'm glad this idiot was fired but lowering rates right now is weapons grade idiocy.

Look at her stunning body of research. Most of it involves race and/or gender

94chem said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Signing two different mortgage notes within 30 days of eachother, both attesting that they will be your primary residence, is way, way, way worse than any statement that might have inflated the opinion of value of a property you held.

---

Is it? I mean, I don't know how to rank these things. I mean, I can't claim real estate depreciation on my taxes because I make $150K, but he can lie about his real estate value to get better terms. Rules for thee... Is it worse than calling hush money to your side piece a business expense?

---

Real estate valuations are subjective if they're not part of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's why the lender on a mortgage will order an appraisal to estimate the value of the underlying collateral. It doesn't matter what the borrower thinks his asset is worth, only the lender's opinion counts. Also, Trump can't claim depreciation on an estimated value that he made up, so you can rest assured.

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

Second, I'm not saying thar Trump claimed depreciation on exaggerated base values. I'm merely saying that the Trump tax code punishes middle class real estate owners with small portfolios by making it difficult to deal with negative cash flow early in their ownership phase. It's very difficult to justify an otherwise good investment if you can't monetize increased equity or deduct operating losses.

Third, all of this is moot. We all know that POTUS is firing people so he can control interest rates. Is that really what you want?

---

First, I hate to break it to you, but the diligence/vetting process only becomes more detailed and onerous as the size of the transaction increases. A $500 million loan to Trump would definitely be more scrutinized than a $750k mortgage to you or me. Fact.

Second, please explain how the tax code (not Trump's tax code) punishes middle class real estate owners. There is no limit to depreciation based on income, and Trump has now increased bonus depreciation to 100%. Sounds like he's helping people by creating more non-cash expenses that will reduce taxable income. Now, if you don't spend at least 50% of your time pursuing real estate, I think you're limited to $25,000 of losses against your AGI. Regardless, Trump didn't impose this limit. Congress made the "qualifying real estate professional " exception in 1993, so not sure how Trump has anything to do with it.

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

BTHOB said:

---

So…. Is she gone or not? Trump says she's fired. She says she's not going anywhere. The Fed says she's still there.

"A Federal Reserve spokesperson has indicated that from the central bank's perspective, Cook's status as a governor is unchanged. The Fed, which is designed to be independent from political influence, will wait for a court ruling to determine the outcome."

I guess there will be a court that will ultimately have to decide? Is she still there until that decision?

---

I guess nobody really knows whether she is still employed there or not? (see my question quoted above)

What a cluster.

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

94chem said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Signing two different mortgage notes within 30 days of eachother, both attesting that they will be your primary residence, is way, way, way worse than any statement that might have inflated the opinion of value of a property you held.

---

Is it? I mean, I don't know how to rank these things. I mean, I can't claim real estate depreciation on my taxes because I make $150K, but he can lie about his real estate value to get better terms. Rules for thee... Is it worse than calling hush money to your side piece a business expense?

---

Real estate valuations are subjective if they're not part of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's why the lender on a mortgage will order an appraisal to estimate the value of the underlying collateral. It doesn't matter what the borrower thinks his asset is worth, only the lender's opinion counts. Also, Trump can't claim depreciation on an estimated value that he made up, so you can rest assured.

---

First, you don't seriously believe that Trump went through the same appraisal process that you or I would go through, do you? The court documents explain this clearly.

Second, I'm not saying thar Trump claimed depreciation on exaggerated base values. I'm merely saying that the Trump tax code punishes middle class real estate owners with small portfolios by making it difficult to deal with negative cash flow early in their ownership phase. It's very difficult to justify an otherwise good investment if you can't monetize increased equity or deduct operating losses.

Third, all of this is moot. We all know that POTUS is firing people so he can control interest rates. Is that really what you want?

---

First, I hate to break it to you, but the diligence/vetting process only becomes more detailed and onerous as the size of the transaction increases. A $500 million loan to Trump would definitely be more scrutinized than a $750k mortgage to you or me. Fact.

Second, please explain how the tax code (not Trump's tax code) punishes middle class real estate owners. There is no limit to depreciation based on income, and Trump has now increased bonus depreciation to 100%. Sounds like he's helping people by creating more non-cash expenses that will reduce taxable income. Now, if you don't spend at least 50% of your time pursuing real estate, I think you're limited to $25,000 of losses against your AGI. Regardless, Trump didn't impose this limit. Congress made the "qualifying real estate professional " exception in 1993, so not sure how Trump has anything to do with it.

Third, we all know that Powell is keeping interest rates high for political purposes. It's funny that he didn't have a problem cutting rates for his buddy Biden before the election when inflation was higher than it is now. Also, the Fed Funds Rate is sitting at 4.5%, while the ECB is at 2%, the Bank of Japan is at 0.5%, and China is at 1.4%. Why should we be paying interest rates that are 2.25x-9x higher than the rest of the world? Don't you think that's unfairly burdening the interest carry on our national debt and throttling our economy?

---

Your post is right on the money. However you can't use facts, logic, or truth with leftists. They have a sort of leftist dyslexia. That is, whenever they read the truth all they can see is something written in Swahili. So, none of those things have any affect on them.

BTHOB said:

---

BTHOB said:

---

So…. Is she gone or not? Trump says she's fired. She says she's not going anywhere. The Fed says she's still there.

"A Federal Reserve spokesperson has indicated that from the central bank's perspective, Cook's status as a governor is unchanged. The Fed, which is designed to be independent from political influence, will wait for a court ruling to determine the outcome."

I guess there will be a court that will ultimately have to decide? Is she still there until that decision?

---

I guess nobody really knows whether she is still employed there or not? (see my question quoted above)

What a cluster.

---

She is openly defying her boss. He should have her arrested for trespassing on government property. Maybe open the J6 gulags back up for her to **** and brush her teeth in the same space.

The Fed is not a court. See Article III.

The Fed is not an organ of Congress. See Article I.

Therefore, by simple process of elimination, the Fed must be part of the Article II Executive Branch. And that is even without making the obvious points that the Fed issues regulations.… https://t.co/1Cp95Kscto

— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) August 27, 2025

Quote:

---

The Fed is not a court. See Article III.

The Fed is not an organ of Congress. See Article I.

Therefore, by simple process of elimination, the Fed must be part of the Article II Executive Branch. And that is even without making the obvious points that the Fed issues regulations. It administers federal banking laws. These are executive functions.

Or
@JamesSurowiecki
, has your archaeological dig discovered a previously unknown Article of the Constitution creating a fourth branch of government? Or did we all miss an amendment to the Constitution adopted at some point before 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed?

Without its own branch-enabling Article in the original Constitution or a constitutional amendment authorizing "an independent central bank," your concept of an "independent central bank" branch as "its own thing" is farcical.

---

Quote:

---

So…. Is she gone or not? Trump says she's fired. She says she's not going anywhere. The Fed says she's still there.

"A Federal Reserve spokesperson has indicated that from the central bank's perspective, Cook's status as a governor is unchanged. The Fed, which is designed to be independent from political influence, will wait for a court ruling to determine the outcome."

I guess there will be a court that will ultimately have to decide? Is she still there until that decision?

---

Not gone.

The Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in on this. What was put forth is pretty skimpy . . it is just a "criminal referral" citing two documents that have not been analyzed against anything else. There has been no actual mortgage fraud investigation and no real due process for anything. It was just a drive by media hit by one of Trump's foot soldiers. The meaning of "for cause" will have to be determined by the judges. Early reads is that it is likely not going to stand and will just be another Roy Cohn-esque jab by Trump's team.

This is all so self-defeating though. Trump's picks are going to be viewed by the larger Fed system as useful idiots and ideologically suspect. They are also probably going to go under the lens of "for cause" if the Dems recapture the White House or even just congress as Fed oversight is 99% a congressional tasks.

She is still serving for now as this is totally uncharted waters.

OK, thanks for providing some extra clarification. It gets so hard trying to find out anything substantive as there is too much contradicting information out there.