I thought it was notable that Roberts kept returning to the merit of the case against Cook. Not sure if this will find its way into the opinion, but seemed like he was clearly pointing out the absurdity of defining the mortgage application error as gross negligence.
Bless you, Chris, for sitting through the hearing. While I would have liked to have listened to the arguments, questions and answers, I cannot manage the wherewithal to listen to John Sauer speak, just like I cannot listen nor watch Trump or his toady Bobby Kennedy, Jr. speak. Their voices (and subjects) are, as far as I'm concerned, worse than fingernails on a chalkboard.
All well and good, and surely expected...now, let's have *Learning Resources, Inc* and *VOS* opinions already, as trump is back to punitive tariff threats yet again, this time over Greenland. He's not even bothering with any "legal" authority or "emergency", just plain extortion.
I noticed Sauer interrupting the female justices (I couldn't tell which one because he did it so quickly she wasn't higlighted). I'm so glad Roberts stepped in and admonished him. He was more than sorry!
The fact that trump can blame anyone for deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” or, at least, “gross negligence in financial transactions.“, is next level hypocrisy!!
That would be the same corrupt Supreme Court you spent all summer damning? I am trying to avoid the curmudgeon feel, but I think the time is coming to say something.
As I tried to say then, the big non-sequitur was to think that the emergency docket had anything to do with the ultimate merits of the cause. The primary purpose, and a good one, is discipline of lower federal courts, of which, in my opinion, they are in great need.
When these cases are decided on the merits, most notably the tariff case which is going to produce some very interesting opinions, you're going to see a diverse and wildly split Court, and not at all on partisan lines. I am hoping that is true even of the two two dyed-in-the-wool conservatives (Alito and Thomas) and the two two doctrinaire liberals (Sotomayor and Jackson). The others are centrists of various hues and are going to go every which way. It has nothing at all to do with how they voted on the emergency docket.
That they let Cook remain in office, contrary to the others, pretty much gives away the game. Can’t wait to see how they reconcile ruling for Cook here and Trump in all the others.
That's the key...the reconcile...and it will all be smoke and mirrors. Actually just blatant lawless hypocrisy (actually in this decision they will get it right...and the contrast to their other lawless decisions will be transparent). Congress created laws/agencies with Independence. It's the Executive Branches job to faithfully execute those laws. And just because agencies are within the Executive Branch does not/should not mean they can disregard the written text of the law (interesting point from Traitor Thomas questioning if The Fed is actually an Executive Branch Agency). The Unitary Executive Theory driving them is a BS unDemocratic/UnConstitutional King driven right wing play because they actually hate Democracy/Equality. It's insane how they are disregarding/making up law after law with BS Reconcile. The arguments today are the same for the other agencies they destroyed the independence of. They (Right Wing Justices) just view The Fed as untouchable as a Monetary/Economic function which they value more than anything (except minority oppression). The Fed was created in 1913...just like the other agencies that were created as independent that they are destroying. They talk today of how The Fed will effect the people if there is disruption...as if their other BS decisions on destroying important independent agencies had no effect on 'the people'. You are correct...they act with such haste to overturn or stay decisions they/Trump Admin like...and the fact they let Cook remain gave the current decision away.
What is the likelihood that the court finds that even the other independent agencies also do not fall under the executive, given this line of questioning?
I took pleasure in your comments about Sauer’s style as advocate. He talks as if he’s the smartest guy in the room. His manner must irk judges who are at least as smart.
The difference between Sauer and Clement was telling.
I genuinely do not understand the role of social media posts as argued here and evidenced by behavior elsewhere -- their seems to be a generally accepted belief that a post to ANY social media bears the same strength as a statement at a podium, during an interview, or an EO (which, lately, are treated as law). Except social media platforms are not transparent about who is actually saying what, are often hacked, experience glitches, are not protected for civility, legality, truth, or safety. The idea that a social media post is taken as valid, or takes the place of a review for cause, is bonkers to me.
It is just another example that the many of the Justices do not have a consistent ideology around presidential powers, but in this case they saw a risk to their long-term financial security. They know Trump would not manage the FED well, and the Justices have investments and savings to protect. If only they could see that Trump’s other [illegal] “unitary executive” policies affect them negatively too, just less directly.
I listened to the whole thing, and you've perfectly captured all the facts, nuance, and hilarity that I heard! Thank you for a great summation!
I thought it was notable that Roberts kept returning to the merit of the case against Cook. Not sure if this will find its way into the opinion, but seemed like he was clearly pointing out the absurdity of defining the mortgage application error as gross negligence.
IF it even was an error. Nobody except Trump and Pulte and Sauer are calling it fraud.
Bless you, Chris, for sitting through the hearing. While I would have liked to have listened to the arguments, questions and answers, I cannot manage the wherewithal to listen to John Sauer speak, just like I cannot listen nor watch Trump or his toady Bobby Kennedy, Jr. speak. Their voices (and subjects) are, as far as I'm concerned, worse than fingernails on a chalkboard.
Excellent and I must say, delicious post detailing Trump’s bad day at the Supreme Court. Sour! Sharing this one around!
All well and good, and surely expected...now, let's have *Learning Resources, Inc* and *VOS* opinions already, as trump is back to punitive tariff threats yet again, this time over Greenland. He's not even bothering with any "legal" authority or "emergency", just plain extortion.
Speak now,, O Scotus!
Don’t think it’s so much as not liking rules, but actually believing they don’t apply to him. A godling pooh-poohs at hubris.
I mean, I think that is pretty clearly what it means. (If you were confused by the first paragraph’s intent, the third should remove any doubt.)
Indeed … and agreed.
I noticed Sauer interrupting the female justices (I couldn't tell which one because he did it so quickly she wasn't higlighted). I'm so glad Roberts stepped in and admonished him. He was more than sorry!
The fact that trump can blame anyone for deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” or, at least, “gross negligence in financial transactions.“, is next level hypocrisy!!
Historian will have field day on this BS
That would be the same corrupt Supreme Court you spent all summer damning? I am trying to avoid the curmudgeon feel, but I think the time is coming to say something.
As I tried to say then, the big non-sequitur was to think that the emergency docket had anything to do with the ultimate merits of the cause. The primary purpose, and a good one, is discipline of lower federal courts, of which, in my opinion, they are in great need.
When these cases are decided on the merits, most notably the tariff case which is going to produce some very interesting opinions, you're going to see a diverse and wildly split Court, and not at all on partisan lines. I am hoping that is true even of the two two dyed-in-the-wool conservatives (Alito and Thomas) and the two two doctrinaire liberals (Sotomayor and Jackson). The others are centrists of various hues and are going to go every which way. It has nothing at all to do with how they voted on the emergency docket.
That they let Cook remain in office, contrary to the others, pretty much gives away the game. Can’t wait to see how they reconcile ruling for Cook here and Trump in all the others.
That's the key...the reconcile...and it will all be smoke and mirrors. Actually just blatant lawless hypocrisy (actually in this decision they will get it right...and the contrast to their other lawless decisions will be transparent). Congress created laws/agencies with Independence. It's the Executive Branches job to faithfully execute those laws. And just because agencies are within the Executive Branch does not/should not mean they can disregard the written text of the law (interesting point from Traitor Thomas questioning if The Fed is actually an Executive Branch Agency). The Unitary Executive Theory driving them is a BS unDemocratic/UnConstitutional King driven right wing play because they actually hate Democracy/Equality. It's insane how they are disregarding/making up law after law with BS Reconcile. The arguments today are the same for the other agencies they destroyed the independence of. They (Right Wing Justices) just view The Fed as untouchable as a Monetary/Economic function which they value more than anything (except minority oppression). The Fed was created in 1913...just like the other agencies that were created as independent that they are destroying. They talk today of how The Fed will effect the people if there is disruption...as if their other BS decisions on destroying important independent agencies had no effect on 'the people'. You are correct...they act with such haste to overturn or stay decisions they/Trump Admin like...and the fact they let Cook remain gave the current decision away.
What is the likelihood that the court finds that even the other independent agencies also do not fall under the executive, given this line of questioning?
I took pleasure in your comments about Sauer’s style as advocate. He talks as if he’s the smartest guy in the room. His manner must irk judges who are at least as smart.
The difference between Sauer and Clement was telling.
I genuinely do not understand the role of social media posts as argued here and evidenced by behavior elsewhere -- their seems to be a generally accepted belief that a post to ANY social media bears the same strength as a statement at a podium, during an interview, or an EO (which, lately, are treated as law). Except social media platforms are not transparent about who is actually saying what, are often hacked, experience glitches, are not protected for civility, legality, truth, or safety. The idea that a social media post is taken as valid, or takes the place of a review for cause, is bonkers to me.
Thank you Chris for this
excellent recap. You
would think, in an as
important case as this,
that Saur would have a
hard copy, not a screen
shot, of the supposed
mortgage cheat of Ms.
Cook. I definitely liked
the questions by the
justices and have hope
Ms. Cook and the FED
will remain independent
and intact.
This is heartening. Thank you very much.
Thanks for this summary. This why I subscribe. :-)
If I can be so self-promoting, I posted something about the "unitary executive" a few months back.
https://substack.com/@whoviating/p-173161164
It is just another example that the many of the Justices do not have a consistent ideology around presidential powers, but in this case they saw a risk to their long-term financial security. They know Trump would not manage the FED well, and the Justices have investments and savings to protect. If only they could see that Trump’s other [illegal] “unitary executive” policies affect them negatively too, just less directly.