this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
176 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3490 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell asserts that he cannot be fired by President-elect Donald Trump, citing legal protections under the Federal Reserve Act.

Trump has previously expressed his desire to remove Powell, but legal experts argue that a policy disagreement would not constitute “for cause” removal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 140 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

They have the SCOTUS majority and Congress you fuck.

If you're really trying to be bold, do something worthwhile to stop him instead of posturing about your miniscule fucking job.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

He is correct, though, that as the law currently stands, Trump can't just get rid of him on his own authority. And changing the law does take time, theres a process to go through. It's not like they can just pass a bill that says "Trump can do whatever he damn well pleases". It has to be worded properly to pass legal muster. There are specific committees that deal with that stuff, and the legislators in charge of that want to keep ownership of it. And he would need to get the entire Republican Caucus to agree, since it will get no Democratic support at all. A handful of Republicans might have their own reasons to not make the changes Trump demands.

Trump can try without going through all that trouble, but the Powell gets to tell him to go pound sand, and the courts got the final say. Even if the courts are in the tank for Trump, it will still take time to resolve

If Trump wants him gone, he could probably manage it eventually, with enough effort. But will the administration be disciplined enough to see it through? They might decide other things are more important, like putting brown people in camps.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Since when have laws stopped, or for that matter slowed the trump administration

[–] potatopotato@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Law is a human construct, it is essentially a consensus structure. You can hold up a piece of paper that says "I can do what I want" and maybe it's even legitimate, but you still need to convince other people of that and our legal structure/precedent puts more emphasis on process than being efficient or fast.

In effect, the law has stopped trump from doing just about everything he wants to sans a few items. Every time he tries to do something he has to fight a bunch of people and that takes up some of his finite time and resources.

Just because he has friends in all the high places doesn't mean everyone else will just jump into line and do exactly what he wants, the more people obstruct the less damage he can do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)