Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Does Trump Have the Legal Authority to Demote the Federal Reserve Chairman?

In case you are wondering....
Pressuring the Fed to juice the economy as he seeks re-election, the president is toying with an unprecedented challenge to its independence.
If Mr. Trump did demote Mr. Powell and the latter filed a lawsuit challenging whether it was lawful to strip him of his chairmanship, the outcome could turn on the philosophy that a judge brings to the question of how to interpret statutes......A judge who analyzes the dispute based on the text alone would most likely rule that Mr. Trump could demote Mr. Powell, while a judge who thinks the statute should be analyzed in light of Congress’s intent of structuring the Fed to be able to resist political pressure could rule the other way.
https://nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/trump-fed-chairman-powell.html

Comments

  • Did Obama have the legal authority to weaponize the FBI against the opposition candidate in a presidential election?

  • Edmond said:

    Did Obama have the legal authority to weaponize the FBI against the opposition candidate in a presidential election?

    WTF are you talking about?
  • https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/10/former_intel_officer_tony_shaffer_on_spying_on_trump_campaign_no_way_obama_was_not_told.html

    Makes the Watergate break-in seem trivial. At least Nixon outsourced his criminality to contractors. Obama corrupted the FBI leadership.
    Mona said:

    Edmond said:

    Did Obama have the legal authority to weaponize the FBI against the opposition candidate in a presidential election?

    WTF are you talking about?
  • edited June 2019
    Sorry - But I’m in the WTF camp. How does a discussion of The Federal Reserve (whose Chair is a Presidential appointment) turn into a discussion of dirty tricks in politics? The first topic seems directly relevant to investing. The second does not.

    Is this what we have to look forward to here for the next 18 months?
  • "But Obama did this......." is a common refrain from Trumpinistas. I find it best to ignore them. They pivot back to Obama or Hilary to take the spotlight off of Trump and to redirect. Trump is STILL TALKING about Hilary because it galvanizes his "base". They parrot his out-takes.

    Donnie is meddling where he shouldn't be and abusing his exec privileges once again. Remember this when you vote in 2020.

    The Fed should not be another one of Donnie's political puppets. We have enough of those.
  • edited June 2019
    Well, we have courts for such issues. I would hope that were Powell dismissed, he’d file and receive an injunction from a higher court allowing him to continue in the post until the courts can resolve the question. I thought the way @davfor presented the topic seemed pretty non-political. But - I guess it’s a sign of the times that everything needs to devolve into political mudslinging.

    @JoeD - You are taking the bait that Edmond threw out there. That’s the purpose behind such a blatantly political and provocative post. That way we can all crawl in the gutter together and deal with substantive issues form a purely emotional and partisan standpoint. Problem with that? It serves to obscure the actual issues. Lots of smoke. Lots of anger and angst. Perhaps even hate. Nothing accomplished by way of understanding the issues or working out differences.
  • Yes- It's sometimes best to let sleeping dogs just lay there dreaming their fantasies.
  • @hank, I'd like to say that supporters like Edmond are the exception, but at least online, its more the norm. Its all redirects and attacks on Dems and trolling. So, there is rarely going to be discussion aimed at the OP. That's why I mentioned ignoring such individuals.

    For better or worse, its always about taking sides here in the US - Republican or Democrat. If I thought we could really change the system, I'd be all for it.

    Right now, we can't even be sure the 2020 Election will not be interfered with by other countries (cough, Russia) thanks to Donnie INVITING such mayhem. Especially since it works to his advantage.

    How do you "work out differences" with people who would support that kind of garbage?
    Yes, I'd put Donnie's head on a pike. You watch him act like he's Dictator of the US, and you watch his minions blindly follow, and you wonder what kind of country you are now living in.

    Donnie belongs in jail. If he wasn't holding the title of POTUS, he probably would be incarcerated by now. The U.S. Congress is a joke. SOMEHOW, he gets away with murder (or close to it). Its sickening.

    He will tilt the Fed's actions to benefit his 2020 re-election. And we sit idly by.
  • edited June 2019
    @JoeD- In fairness it's worth noting that he certainly wouldn't be the first US president to try that. Although, also in fairness, the total crudeness and abusiveness of his attempts are undeniably remarkable.
  • The possibility Trump may decide to demote Powell is one of the factors being considered by the markets. (A headline on the Bloomberg website today reads "Trump Says Didn’t Threaten to Demote Fed’s Powell But Has Right". ) It makes sense to have an understanding of Trump's legal authority to do that. My post was meant to help shed some light on this question. It sounds like the answer may be uncertain enough the Supreme Court would need to make the final call.
  • davfor said:

    It sounds like the answer may be uncertain enough the Supreme Court would need to make the final call.

    Ah yes, the same Supreme Court where Brett Kavanaugh snuck in while lying through his teeth. After McConnell blocked Obama's pick in 2016, you could see where this was going. Should we trust this Supreme Court at this point - is the US Supreme Court really non-partisan?

  • edited June 2019
    JoeD said:

    Should we trust this Supreme Court at this point ... ?

    Yes. Of course. That’s all we have. Last time I checked we were still a nation of law.
    Are you seriously advocating taking to the streets with arms to resolve political differences?

    Utter Nonsense.


    Hey everybody. This is Mutual Fund Observer - Not Facebook.

  • hank said:

    JoeD said:

    Should we trust this Supreme Court at this point ... ?

    Yes. Of course. That’s all we have. Last time I checked we were still a nation of law.
    Are you seriously advocating taking to the streets with arms to resolve political differences?

    Utter Nonsense.


    Hey everybody. This is Mutual Fund Observer - Not Facebook.

    Uh, hank, who advocated taking to the streets with arms? I don't even own a gun.

    But I'm not going to be gullible here. McConnell has made sure to get his GOP picks onto the Supreme Court. You can place your faith in the system and the US govt, but I keep my eyes wide open. "That's all we have" doesn't cut it.

  • @JoeD - To the contrary. You are the “gullible” one here. You allowed Edmund to bait you through his completely off-topic and provocative political diatribe into doubting the validity of our judicial system over which the Supreme Court reigns. Regardless of the process by which each member attained his / her position, The Court is still the supreme law of the land. If you lose respect for and confidence in the Court, you are losing that for the law as well. The alternative is anarchy. You can’t profess not to “trust” the Court and than expect our laws to prevail and to protect you against the tyranny of the masses.

    Here we are more than a year before the election and this garbage is already infiltrating a board dedicated to investing. Expect more Edmunds to surface and attempt to sow discord here and everywhere online over the next 15 or so months. You and I have the choice of being drawn into pointless and counterproductive vitriol or ignoring such and continuing on with discussion of investing.
  • @hank. Has nothing to do with Edmond. davfor brought up the Supreme Court possibility.

    I feel that Trump is fine with the Supreme Court making decisions where he will be counting on a 5-4 vote in his favor, whatever the issue. You can believe that the SC would remain objective, but I am not so certain.

    Would be interesting to see how that plays out.
  • edited June 2019
    JoeD said:

    “Ah yes, the same Supreme Court where Brett Kavanaugh snuck in while lying through his teeth. After McConnell blocked Obama's pick in 2016, you could see where this was going. Should we trust this Supreme Court at this point ... ?”

    @JoeD - I’ve quoted your earlier statement to which I took exception. Regardless of whether you intended to respond to Edmund directly or not, your tenor here matches his vitriolic attack. He chose to demonize Obama and the FBI. You reciprocated in kind (perhaps unknowingly) by vilifying Kavanaugh and the Court.

    I’m arguing for (1) adherence to the primary mission here which is investing, and (2) fair play and moderation when investment discussions inadvertently stray into the political realm. Perhaps we can’t exclude politics completely from the board, but we can at least be judicious, open-minded, tolerant and considerate in how we approach the political issues that arise.

    I won’t have any more to say on this. I’ve sorely overstepped the bounds of topicality here. But, as I hope you can tell, I feel strongly about the issues.
  • Its interesting that the part you cut off from my quote was...."- is the US Supreme Court really non-partisan?".

    Anyway, maybe MFO could re-consider the "ignore" feature for posters (although Ted would never allow it, as I recall from prior discussions).
  • It seems to me that oddly enough, there is a common desire from posters as disparate as Ted, hank and myself to avoid inflammatory subjects which are completely political, without even a tenuous tie to investing.

    Edmond's post fits that description.

    Hank and I (and many other very long-time MFO posters) have in the past trudged through extended periods where gratuitous political attacks, instigated by posters such as Edmond, have threatened to destroy the civility and basic stability of MFO. Many of us believe that a posting environment which frequently devolves into heated exchanges of partisan bickering and propaganda does a serious disservice to MFO, resulting in the departure of posters who do not appreciate that type of atmosphere.

    Hank is expressing his fear that by allowing a poster such as Edmond to set the tone of a posting thread, we set ourselves up to allow the hijacking of MFO, potentially creating that very sort of environment.

    Faced with a post such as Edmond's, two choices are available: the first is to ignore it, perhaps flagging it as unacceptable so as to bring the poster to the attention of the moderators. It may take gentle nudges to engage the attention of the moderators, as they tend to run this shop with a very light hand. Past experience, though, suggests that if a poster proves to be predictably an instigator of trouble they will eventually be dealt with accordingly. The second option is to respond in kind.

    I agree with hank that if the offensive post is entirely unrelated to financial affairs, the first option is preferred. However, if the post makes unsupportable allegations of a financial nature, my personal instinct is to engage in a point-by-point challenge and rebuttal. Trust me, there are quite a number of posters here, including hank, who are more than capable of holding their own in that sort of contest.

    I certainly can't improve on hank's observation:
    I’m arguing for-
    • (1) adherence to the primary mission here which is investing, and
    • (2) fair play and moderation when investment discussions inadvertently stray into the political realm.

    Perhaps we can’t exclude politics completely from the board, but we can at least be judicious, open-minded, tolerant and considerate in how we approach the political issues that arise.

    @JoeD... a personal note: I completely agree with you with respect to Mitch McConnell, the blatant partisan unfairness of his Supreme Court manipulations, and the dubious quality of future SC decisions which most likely will result from that. However I also agree with hank that that subject, standing alone without reference to a specific financially related topic, is inappropriate for this posting thread.

  • edited June 2019
    On the subject of the thread. I have linked below what the thoughts of the widely followed Josh Brown has to say on the subject.

    https://thereformedbroker.com/2019/06/21/yes-of-course-trump-could-fire-the-fed-chairman/

    So, it seems, the Trumpster will get his man if he so chooses.

    By the way, I liked Edmond's message. I believe others on the board have taken the same liberty in making comments, on their views, about Trump when they themselves are now calling out Edmond for making his.

    I'm now off the board for a while to enjoy the rest of the summer.
  • Hi, guys.

    I appreciate the many spirited and thoughtful comments above, many of which fall in the "oh, come on, let's not hop into the gutter with the rest of the web" camp. In support of that end, I've closed this discussion since the temptation to respond to some later silliness will be nearly overwhelming. (That's pretty much the reason I don't keep cookies anywhere in the house, since the routinely swamp my resolve.)

    Take care. Ireland was great. Pictures to follow!

    David
This discussion has been closed.