Success! Thank you, BlueSky!

Wait wut?

He doesn't even have to negotiate. He and the other Republicans can just nuke the filibuster, as they've done for practically everything else.

Boy, do I hear you.

But will the courts? Tbd...

To be clear, we need not choose between progressive policies and independent regulators; independence does not mean serving the interests of regulated industries over those of the public. It simply means being able to act without fear or favor.

Oooooh!

If they lose on for cause, they're not going to go for broke is my point.

Sure, sure. To be clear, I have no idea. I filed a brief in Vullo on the side of Vullo, so that shows just how much law I know.

FWIW, on remand the 2d Circuit held that Vullo had qualified immunity. I'm not a QI scholar, but I could imagine Carr getting it here, too.

Sure sure. I'm not sure they care. Everyone was telling them that removing a fed Governor would cause markets to go haywire, and we're seeing that's not the case. Will they realize that it's because markets see Cook as still serving? I don't think so.

Why does that put them in a pickle? The majority seems content with declaring what the law is but preventing courts from getting involved adjudicating cases involving them.

Applied here, the argument is that the for cause removal exists, but it's not for courts to adjudicate.

All good. I don't tackle exactly with the problem you're wrestling with, but I do argue that courts explicitly went against the congressional intent of having strong, progressive banking laws when they gave Chevron defence to the OCC and Fed.

Luke, have you read my paper on this? papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

If it were me, I'd go back to what the Court said in Chevron (the 1984 case, not the subsequent glosses): If judges really don't know, defer to the agency. But if judges have a sense of what Congress actually wanted, then go with what Congress wanted. Subsequent holdings (eg Mead) muddled things.

Sry, was on a very long phone call.

I think we must distinguish b/t interpretations of statute and the Constitution. NBA interpretations don't concern me b/c Congress can change the law, whereas if SCOTUS says removal protections are unconstitutional, there's nothing Congress can do about it.

Overruling an agency's interpretation of a statute's purpose is not the same thing as juristocracy.

Why are these two--juristocracy or granting Chevron deference--the only options?

I don't think you can read, e.g., Bankers Trust I and come away with the conclusion that it was a juristocratic opinion. They just realized that Congress wanted to address the causes of the Great Depression.