Exactly. The blue slip rule gives individual senators veto power over presidential appointments, which violates the constitution. If the president can't have line item veto power over the actions of the legislature, no one senator should have veto power over the appointment duties of the president.

txags92 said:

---

Exactly. The blue slip rule gives individual senators veto power over presidential appointments, which violates the constitution. If the president can't have line item veto power over the actions of the legislature, no one senator should have veto power over the appointment duties of the president.

---

But I am still not sure there are five Justices inclined to police the legislative branch on their own internal rules.

Recent court decisions (or lack thereof) indicate there are 5 justices willing to do anything other than get trucked over by the lower courts.

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Exactly. The blue slip rule gives individual senators veto power over presidential appointments, which violates the constitution. If the president can't have line item veto power over the actions of the legislature, no one senator should have veto power over the appointment duties of the president.

---

But I am still not sure there are five Justices inclined to police the legislative branch on their own internal rules.

---

Would be better to just have Thune put his foot down on the rule than to make a court case out of it.

Quote:

---

Would be better to just have Thune put his foot down on the rule than to make a court case out of it.

---

Agree.

Thune likes the status quo. He is doing nothing to help Trump get his judges in place.

The issue may be the constitution is fairly clear the house and senate can make their own internal rules regarding how they each carry out their constitutional duties. If they are so stupid as to write in a presumptive agreement that all senators will support the objection of any senator using that procedure then it will be difficult to change this unless the senate votes to change its own rules.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It is an arbitrary rule in the Senate. They can take it out, or probably even disregard if they so choose.

---

More like this. IIRC, there was not a blue slip against Merrick Garland but McConnell refused to bring his SCOTUS nomination for a vote anyway.

---

That was nothing about the blue slip for a home state senator, but because Mitch honored the "Biden Rule" about SCOTUS nominations in presidential election years when the majority of the senate was of the opposing party.

Remember, Joe Biden was proud of his success in blocking Bjork, sinking the first female black nominee (Janice Rogers Brown), and almost blocking Clarence Thomas with his racially-motivated charges/theatrics ("digital lynching").

Everything about Senate traditions is about timeframes; it may be advantageous now to nuke the blue slip entirely, but not longer term. It's been reduced to trial court level now, not even appellate courts, for judicial nominations, and has no impact on scotus nominees.

The Biden rule appealed to Democrats in the 90's, less so in 2016, all about timeframes. Just as with Harry Reid's packing of the DC circuit made sense, with a rule change…and a rule change now makes sense.

ETA: just think, Clarence Thomas has lasted an eternity on the court, 6th longest tenure I think. Just think, the left learned from politically killing Ginsburg and Bork how much their politics of 'personal destruction' (a Bill Clinton lament, ironically) worked to their advantage, leading to Anthony Kennedy's nomination.

So just stalling.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration heads back to SCOTUS to seek a stay after winning at the D.C. Circuit but then full court and lower court refusing to allow panel decision to take effect pending Circuit Court deciding whether to rehear as full court (en banc). 1/ pic.twitter.com/M1STV7u9rG

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 26, 2025

3/ Full application. https://t.co/P9A4aRpJ89

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 26, 2025

More about my post above. DOJ asks SCOTUS to make the appeals court issue their mandate. Deadline for government not to dole out these funds in Sept. 30.

Thread.

BREAKING: @AGPamBondi and SG John Sauer have filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court regarding their huge win in the USAID impoundment case, which we discussed previously.  This is a big deal, as I'll explain. 1/ pic.twitter.com/qFlbSZPrCp

— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) August 27, 2025

Second, you might be wondering why @TheJusticeDept is seeking emergency relief in a case it *won*. Even though the DC Circuit deemed the district court's injunction patently unlawful, that injunction dissolves only when the DC Circuit issues its formal mandate. 3/

— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) August 27, 2025

DOJ's only recourse is accordingly the Supreme Court.  5/

— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) August 27, 2025

txags92 said:

---

Exactly. The blue slip rule gives individual senators veto power over presidential appointments, which violates the constitution. If the president can't have line item veto power over the actions of the legislature, no one senator should have veto power over the appointment duties of the president.

---

But, given the nature of the procedure, couldn't it be argued that Congress is the one giving the veto power to one of its own?

Nothing is holding the rest of Congress from just ignoring blue slips.

I see no way on earth that SCOTUS gets involved in day-to-day operations of Congress.

Can you imagine Congress passing a law telling SCOTUS how to internally circulate opinion drafts so that everyone gets a chance to be heard? Crazy talk.

BusterAg said:

---

DC circuit dragging their feet to force gov't to spend billions in USAID $$ just because an NGO sued without a cause to do so, yet it's the result most of them want (Democrats clearly don't care about petty venue/jurisdiction issues, those are just for the little people).

---

Yeah, this is the time to ignore the courts, if there ever is one.

The DC appeals court rules that the injunction is illegal.

Deadline come up, the executive branch just says that it is not going to abide by an illegal injunction that the DC courts simply refuse to move on.

Edit apologies for clicking on the wrong post in my respond to.

Is there something unconstitutional about Congress passing a law about circulating opinions?

Because if not, seems like if Congress passed it and the executive enforces it, then the balance of power has been upheld.

The Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law nor the supreme branch.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Is there something unconstitutional about Congress passing a law about circulating opinions?

Because if not, seems like if Congress passed it and the executive enforces it, then the balance of power has been upheld.

The Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law nor the supreme branch.

---

Article III, section I:

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

---

Would such a law interfere with The judicial Power of the United States? I think it could be interpreted as such. I wonder who gets to make that interpretation?

I think the key question is, is Congress interfering with SCOTUS ability to come to an independent ruling without the meddling of Congress? I would say that Congress dictating how SCOTUS comes to a ruling is not really in line with allowing SCOTUS to come to an independent ruling. I wonder how SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution related to such a law?

Is there anything in the Constitution that says there can be no law regarding the procedure SCOTUS is to follow?

I mean, there was no penalty for the circulation of the Dobbs draft. Why would it be unconstitutional for Congress to say it must be published for open comment?

Again, you seem to be willing to give way, way too much authority to SCOTUS and the courts. That entire concept has become quite dangerous in today's setting.

Courts need their wings clipped.

Btw, the courts continue to violate one of their earliest consequential decisions by ruling to force the Executive to take certain actions.

BREAKING: Judge Lamberth orders Kari Lake to sit for a deposition about whether she is operating Voice of America up to legal minimum standards.

He says this is "one final opportunity" before a contempt trial. pic.twitter.com/M8KSsABWgZ

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 25, 2025

BusterAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

DC circuit dragging their feet to force gov't to spend billions in USAID $$ just because an NGO sued without a cause to do so, yet it's the result most of them want (Democrats clearly don't care about petty venue/jurisdiction issues, those are just for the little people).

---

Yeah, this is the time to ignore the courts, if there ever is one.

The DC appeals court rules that the injunction is illegal.

Deadline come up, the executive branch just says that it is not going to abide by an illegal injunction that the DC courts simply refuse to move on.

Edit apologies for clicking on the wrong post in my respond to.

---

Agreed. Ignore it if not resolved.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Is there anything in the Constitution that says there can be no law regarding the procedure SCOTUS is to follow?

I mean, there was no penalty for the circulation of the Dobbs draft. Why would it be unconstitutional for Congress to say it must be published for open comment?

Again, you seem to be willing to give way, way too much authority to SCOTUS and the courts. That entire concept has become quite dangerous in today's setting.

Courts need their wings clipped.

Btw, the courts continue to violate one of their earliest consequential decisions by ruling to force the Executive to take certain actions.

---

The role of the courts is to interpret the law. That is just basic bread and butter rule of law. I think it is silly that you get away from that.

Also, we do need to make a distinction between SCOTUS and federal district courts. District courts are much more beholden to Congress than SCOTUS is, due to the way the Constitution discusses each.

Finally, these rouge district courts are not following the constitution, clearly. Telling the executive branch what to do is clearly outside of their jurisdiction. These blanket injunctions are crazy. We are likely fully aligned by the excesses that these district courts are demonstrating. The district courts are slowly and systematically being swatted down, for the most part, and it would be great if SCOTUS could clean them up pronto.

But that is still different than whether or not the courts can interpret the law. I think you are mixing two very different topics.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Is there anything in the Constitution that says there can be no law regarding the procedure SCOTUS is to follow?

I mean, there was no penalty for the circulation of the Dobbs draft. Why would it be unconstitutional for Congress to say it must be published for open comment?

Again, you seem to be willing to give way, way too much authority to SCOTUS and the courts. That entire concept has become quite dangerous in today's setting.

Courts need their wings clipped.

Btw, the courts continue to violate one of their earliest consequential decisions by ruling to force the Executive to take certain actions.

---

The role of the courts is to interpret the law. That is just basic bread and butter rule of law. I think it is silly that you get away from that.

Also, we do need to make a distinction between SCOTUS and federal district courts. District courts are much more beholden to Congress than SCOTUS is, due to the way the Constitution discusses each.

Finally, these rouge district courts are not following the constitution, clearly. Telling the executive branch what to do is clearly outside of their jurisdiction. These blanket injunctions are crazy. We are likely fully aligned by the excesses that these district courts are demonstrating. The district courts are slowly and systematically being swatted down, for the most part, and it would be great if SCOTUS could clean them up pronto.

But that is still different than whether or not the courts can interpret the law. I think you are mixing two very different topics.

---

I understand what you are saying by "interpret the law". I think maybe where I head off in a different direction is that POTUS is not bound by any "power" of the courts, including SCOTUS.

So if SCOTUS says "we think you need to meet this threshold before you take that action" according to their interpretation of the law. POTUS is within his power to say... as Biden did... that "we don't agree with SCOTUS".

Fine. What now. As I oft say because its the only provision provided for in the US Constitution, is to impeach, convict and remove from office.

Its actually a testament to how the FFs set all this up. I agree SCOTUS should get the district courts in line and should be able to order them around. But SCOTUS has no authority to order the Legislative nor the Executive around. They can give their opinion on what they believe (or interpret) the law / Constitution is saying.

Habeas hearing in 1+ month? They can schedule hearings withing hours/days when someone sues the government, but takes month+ for habeas?

Ship says may be appealable on jurisdictional grounds.

BREAKING: Judge Xinis issues order barring Trump administration from deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia “until further order of the Court.”

The admin stated earlier that it would not deport him during this habeas consideration.

Also per today’s order, the habeas hearing is set… pic.twitter.com/41KY66YHoc

— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) August 27, 2025

He's right. Gov't just wants to have this all cleaned up before doing anything. She can obfuscate for a month or so but she will lose.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I understand what you are saying by "interpret the law".

---

Finally.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think maybe where I head off in a different direction is that POTUS is not bound by any "power" of the courts, including SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS says "we think you need to meet this threshold before you take that action" according to their interpretation of the law. POTUS is within his power to say... as Biden did... that "we don't agree with SCOTUS".

---

---

Damnit, I thought we might have been making progress. I guess I typed too soon.

SCOTUS can't say "we think you need to do this".

They can define what "for cause" means. They can define what "for cause" does not mean. They can interpret the law. The can interpret whether or not the law is constitutional. But, they don't get to tell the executive branch what to do. That is very different than interpreting the law.

Quote:

---

Fine. What now. As I oft say because its the only provision provided for in the US Constitution, is to impeach, convict and remove from office.

Its actually a testament to how the FFs set all this up. I agree SCOTUS should get the district courts in line and should be able to order them around. But SCOTUS has no authority to order the Legislative nor the Executive around. They can give their opinion on what they believe (or interpret) the law / Constitution is saying.

---

Trump can still proclaim that she is fired, even if SCOTUS says that what she did does not fit into "for cause".

So what if Trump says that she is fired, and she still shows up to work even if you have SCOTUS saying Trump can't legally fire her. You are President Trump. What's next? You going to have U.S. Marshall's escort her out by force? He likely has that power. Does that sound like a really good idea?

You could appoint a new board member to replace her and have the board member show up for work and arm-wrestle her for her office chair. But, the new board member has to be confirmed by the senate. Do you think that the senate is going to approve a new board member in those circumstances?

No, what you do, is you make Democrats go all crazy saying that a little bank fraud is OK for a bank board member to commit and not lose her job, because, uh, reasons. Then you make it a three ring circus making democrats defend something that 80% of the nation absolutely hates, elites that get away with things that regular folks can't get away with.

So, basically, Trump's MO.

This is very basic litigation strategy. You frame the argument so that the only defense against your argument is to take a position that makes your client look really, really bad. Saying that a little innocent bank fraud by a bank board member isn't a big enough deal to disqualify a board member, because, well, Orange Man Bad, is just another scalp for Trump to collect on the way to Vance 2028.

This is going to be fun to follow to see who balks.

I'm done with this topic, BTW. We are cluttering up this thread too much. Feel free to start this up on another thread, and happy to see you over there as I have time.

BusterAg said:

---

Trump can still proclaim that she is fired, even SCOTUS says that what she did does not fit into "for cause".

So what if Trump says that she is fired, and she still shows up to work? You have SCOTUS saying Trump can't legally fire her, she shows back up to work. You are President Trump. What's next? You going to have U.S. Marshall's escort her out by force? He likely has that power. Does that sound like a really good idea? Yes. The woman who takes her divine economic guidance from Mt Kilamanjaro is a danger to our Country. Drone strike her. You only option to hold him accountable it impeachment and conviction.

You could appoint a new board member to replace her and have the board member show up for work and arm-wrestle her for her office chair. But, the new board member has to be confirmed by the senate. Do you think that the senate is going to approve a new board member in those circumstances? Yes, they will. Why would they not? SCOTUS overstepped with a wrong take on the Constitution. Follow along. I am absolutely saying SCOTUS can indeed get it "wrong". POTUS can then either violate his Oath of Office by agreeing with SCOTUS (he is not upholding the Constitution) if he feels strongly, then the tie breaker is Congress. As designed. This should not be that hard.

No, what you do, is you make Democrats go all crazy saying that a little bank fraud is OK for a bank board member to commit and not lose her job, because, uh, reasons. Then you make it a three ring circus making democrats defend something that 80% of the nation absolutely hates, elites that get away with things that regular folks can't get away with. Not at all what is going on here.

So, basically, Trump's MO.

This is very basic litigation strategy. You frame the argument so that the only defense against your argument is to take a position that makes your client look really, really bad. Saying that a little innocent bank fraud by a bank board member isn't a big enough deal to disqualify a board member, because, well, Orange Man Bad, is just another scalp for Trump to collect on the way to Vance 2028.

This is going to be fun to follow to see who balks. This is much more fundamental than a Trump Troll. The argument being made is fundamental. If POTUS does not control the Fed Reserve, and Congress only control is they get periodic reporting, and since it would be really weird for the Fed Reserve to be in the Judiciary, then constitutionally where does the Fed exist? Again, Trump has been masterful at making the Executive stronger as it should be, calling out the incompetence of Congress (but not too much since they are R 'controlled'), and showing the Judiciary top to bottom of being nothing but partisan political hacks with little knowledge of the Constitution, separation of powers, co-equal branches of government and many other fundamentals that should have been covered in law school.

---

To add... I am not saying you are wrong, just very clearly not agreeing with your take. I could easily be wrong, but currently do not think I am. Agreeing to move on as well.

txags92 said:

---

Exactly. The blue slip rule gives individual senators veto power over presidential appointments, which violates the constitution. If the president can't have line item veto power over the actions of the legislature, no one senator should have veto power over the appointment duties of the president.

---

One senator doesn't hold veto power. The blue-slip only survives because the rest of Congress acts in unison on it.

The Congress decided to act in lock step and veto appointments, as a group, in certain situations.

Should a single congressperson try to enforce the blue-slip against the wishes of the rest of congress, he/she would get steamrolled.

The blue-slip has no formal power, nor any enforcement power. It's a courtesy agreement that the club chooses to abide by. It will only exist as long as congress as a body chooses to acknowledge it.

Do you think that SCOTUS should rule that individual members of congress shouldn't be able to conspire together to decide how to vote? Are they not allowed to wheel and deal to get things done? Is the blue-slip any different than any other wheelin' / dealin'?

I just think that the veto "power" argument of the blue-slip is DOA.

This is not an issue for SCOTUS. It is an issue for Congress. If you don't like it, write Ted Cruz. Or send Cornyn a copy of "Franklin Barbecue: A Meat-Smoking Manifesto" with a note to get rid of the blue-slip.

techno-ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

DC circuit dragging their feet to force gov't to spend billions in USAID $$ just because an NGO sued without a cause to do so, yet it's the result most of them want (Democrats clearly don't care about petty venue/jurisdiction issues, those are just for the little people).

---

Yeah, this is the time to ignore the courts, if there ever is one.

The DC appeals court rules that the injunction is illegal.

Deadline come up, the executive branch just says that it is not going to abide by an illegal injunction that the DC courts simply refuse to move on.

Edit apologies for clicking on the wrong post in my respond to.

---

Agreed. Ignore it if not resolved.

---

Grant yourself an extension of the deadline pending DC court action.

If Jerome Powell does not acknowledge and confirm himself that Lisa Cook has been terminated for cause, that will be “cause” to terminate him.

He does not get to second guess the Executive’s determination even if he disagrees.

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 28, 2025

Hadn't thought about this one, Powell could walk himself into a fresh 'for cause' if he pouts about his pal Cook being fired.

Hopefully the administration joins this lawsuit in DC against the fascist Brits;

On behalf of our clients, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, the law firms of Byrne & Storm, P.C. (@ByrneStorm) and the Coleman Law Firm, P.C. (@roncoleman) have, today, filed a federal lawsuit against the UK Office of Communications, a/k/a Ofcom, in DC federal court.

Preston Byrne of Byrne… pic.twitter.com/4uXeLqUtdy

— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) August 27, 2025

That's a good thing.

Willful insubordination.

Let them take the CDC route. There is about zero public support for the Fed. It exists because academia and politicals want it to.

Lisa Cook's background show its become the Kennedy Center of the banking system. Eliminate it.

JUST IN: Judge COBB has set a 10am hearing for *tomorrow* on the emergency bid by Lisa Cook to remain in her job at the Fed. pic.twitter.com/nTzTy9llCF

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 28, 2025

Is she planning on:

A) admitting to willfully committing fraud to gain an advantage in a lower interest rate but argue she can't be fired for that?

B) plead a mea culpa and try to say it wan an accident and she didn't know what she signing and then hope the judge says you can't be fired for little mistakes?

C) do neither and just say she can't be fired?

d) None of the above.

Quote:

---

Under the FRA's plain language, Governor Cook has a clear legal entitlement to retain her position as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Section 242 mandates that Federal Reserve Board members can be removed by the President prior to the expiration of their term only "for cause." 12 U.S.C. 242.

President Trump's letter purporting to fire Governor Cook did not cite appropriate cause for removing her from the Board of Governors.

President Trump did not purport to remove Governor Cook for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," or for any actions that were carried out in the course of her official duties.

Instead, the letter purporting to fire Governor Cook refers only to the fact that she "may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements" in her personal capacity four years ago, before she was a Governor. This allegation about conduct that predates Governor Cook's Senate confirmation has never been investigated, much less proven. This allegation is not grounds for removal under the FRA.

---

Yep, as Bessent noted, she won't deny that she did it, only that it hasn't been litigated or is not an appropriate/sufficient reason.

At no point in her 24-page lawsuit does Lisa Cook deny she committed mortgage fraud.

Clogging up the courts with her TDS martyrdom pic.twitter.com/YyZkxYP0Cx

— James Fishback (@j_fishback) August 28, 2025

This case should be swiftly dismissed. "Purportedly fired?" Did she hire some 2L to draft this suit?

Well, they are now conceding that Trump CAN fire her fat ass. They have moved off of "The Fed isn't under the President."

Adios, big girl.

Im Gipper said:

---

d) None of the above.

Quote:

---

Under the FRA's plain language, Governor Cook has a clear legal entitlement to retain her position as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Section 242 mandates that Federal Reserve Board members can be removed by the President prior to the expiration of their term only "for cause." 12 U.S.C. 242.

President Trump's letter purporting to fire Governor Cook did not cite appropriate cause for removing her from the Board of Governors.

President Trump did not purport to remove Governor Cook for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," or for any actions that were carried out in the course of her official duties.

Instead, the letter purporting to fire Governor Cook refers only to the fact that she "may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements" in her personal capacity four years ago, before she was a Governor. This allegation about conduct that predates Governor Cook's Senate confirmation has never been investigated, much less proven. This allegation is not grounds for removal under the FRA.

---

---

From the article below, it would seem the Federal Reserve Act only includes "for cause" and not the additional wording that other acts / agencies / commissions may have.

Lisa Cook challenging this may unleash a whole assortment of cans de worms as with other Executive powers that have been recently challenged in regards to Trump, there is much disagreement and if you get down to it, the Constitution sits in favor of POTUS on this one (IMO of course, but if folks remove their preconceived notions of Trump they may come around).

https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/the-three-permissionspresidential-removal-and-the-statutory-limits-of-agency-independence/

Quote:

---

Seven words stand between the President and the heads of over a dozen "independent agencies": inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance in office (INM). The President can remove the heads of these agencies for INM and only INM. But neither Congress nor the courts have defined INM and hence the extent of agency independence. Stepping into this void, some proponents of presidential power argue that INM allows the President to dismiss officials who do not follow presidential directives. Others contend that INM is unconstitutional because it prevents Presidents from fulfilling their duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article recovers the lost history of INM, explaining its origins and meaning, inverting our current understanding of its purpose, and rejecting both challenges to agency independence.

It shows hat INM provisions are not removal "protections" that prevent at-pleasure removal; they are removal permissions that authorize removal where it is otherwise prohibited by an officer's term of years, a tenure long understood to bar executive removal for any reason. INM provisions are narrow exceptions to term tenures: Neglect of duty and malfeasance in office cash out an official's failure to faithfully execute official duties, while inefficiency relates to government waste and ineptitude.

INM provisions do not permit the President to remove agency heads for failing to follow presidential directives. But they do not clash with the Take Care Clause either, because even on an expansive reading of the clause, INM provisions authorize Presidents to remove unfaithful or incompetent officials.

---

Quote:

---

Much of this debate centers on the statutory provisions that define the President's removal authority. These provisions typically permit the President to remove independent agency heads for cause. Acts creating the Federal Reserve System, the Postal Service, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency use precisely these words ("for cause").

---

Quote:

---

Yet despite the critical role these terms play in shaping the relationship between independent agencies and the President, there is no consensus about what they actually mean. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever defined INM provisions, and in recent years, appeals court judges have been unable to agree on their scope and, hence, on the extent of agency independence.

Can the President remove members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors for keeping interest rates too high?

Do statutory limits on the President's power to remove agency officials conflict with the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed?

The Supreme Court indirectly addressed these questions eighty-five years ago in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, but judges and scholars alike are unsure why the Court decided that case the way that it did. Among other things, the origins of the INM standard are forgotten, as are the goals of the legislators who incorporated it into the federal code.

---