Jessica Gorman told lawmakers her daughter Sheridan “was not a talking point" as she accused sanctuary city leaders of failing to protect American citizens.
As a political matter, it’s understandable that Republicans are angered by the outcome of Trump v. Barbara, which finds that children born in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment even if they aren’t citizens. The policy cheapens American citizenship. The legal debate centers on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause […]
The Supreme Court handed down the final decisions of its term on Tuesday and they reflected what we have seen all year: It is a very conservative court, and although it usually will rule in favor of President Trump, there are times when it will say no to unprecedented claims of presidential power.
'What these idiots don't seem to grasp is the fact that sanctuary policies are resulting in the deaths of Americans'
'Seriously, the president could do this as fast as White House counsel can write it up'
On the surface, Monday's Supreme Court ruling that keeps Lisa Cook in place as a Federal Reserve governor for now was a win for believers that the central bank works best when insulated from the day-to-day control of the president. The details aren't so clear.The big picture: The court punted on several key questions that will determine how much ability President Trump and his successors have to fire Fed governors.Moreover, the decision was closer than many court watchers anticipated, with four of six conservative justices dissenting.Another key ruling Monday grants the president broad latitude to fire heads of independent agencies that aren't the Fed, contrary to a 91-year-old precedent. It shows deep skepticism among the conservative majority about the constitutionality of Congress insulating agencies from presidential control.Fed independence is hanging by a narrow legal asterisk citing America's long, tenuous history with central banking.State of play: Cook will remain on the Board of Governors following the ruling. But the Supreme Court gave little guidance on how high the bar is for a president to fire a Fed governor for cause, nor did it indicate what procedures a president must follow to overcome that bar.In Monday's Trump v. Cook decision, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 5-4 majority, rejected both the Trump administration's arguments that a Fed governor can be fired over mere concerns about their integrity and the argument made by Cook's attorneys that she can be fired only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.""Having rejected both parties' positions, we need not fully demarcate the contours of 'cause' today." Of note: The court similarly suggested that Cook was entitled to some due process to establish cause, rather than to be fired on presidential whim. But it declined to lay out exactly what that should be."At minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due." But Roberts then wrote that the court can only assess the "validity and sufficiency of such charges" after the president sets up this legal process and Cook has responded.What they're saying: "The court is now in the position of procrastinators everywhere: let's let future SCOTUS handle that one," quipped Peter Conti-Brown, the University of Pennsylvania legal scholar.Between the lines: Cook's role as a governor has been in legal limbo for 10 months now, and we still don't know exactly what the standard is for the president to fire her or how he can legally do so.If anything, the majority opinion seemed to bend over backward not to prejudge those issues. That raises the possibility that a president has wide latitude to fire Fed governors for pretext so long as they dot a few more i's and cross more t's than Trump did in the Cook case.If Trump or a future president wants to fire Fed governors over policy differences, it raises the possibility they can find any ticky-tack rationale, convene a legal process run by sycophants and achieve the same goal.Reality check: The original sin here is that Congress, in establishing the Fed, left things vague as to what would constitute "cause" for a president to fire a Fed governor and how that cause should be properly adjudicated.The Federal Reserve Act says only that governors' terms are 14 years "unless sooner removed for cause by the President" without giving more detail.The bottom line: If Congress wants to create clearer guardrails around the firing of Fed governors, it will need to pass legislation. In the meantime, the protections offered by the courts are limited, and still unresolved.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH RIGHT NOW! The post Watch Live: Supreme Court Strikes Down President Trump’s Executive Order On Birthright Citizenship Roberts and Barret Side with Liberals and More! The WAR Zone Podcast With Wayne Allyn Root Presented by The Gateway Pundit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Donald Trump is turning to Congress to pass legislation on birthright citizenship after an attempt to end the practice via executive order was struck down by the Supreme Court. The court voted down Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship by a 6-3 vote on Tuesday morning, striking down an executive order that Trump signed on his […]
After the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, Trump and MAGA lost it. Trump threatened to get Congress to end the guarantee, which it can’t do, and he lamely claimed it was a “WIN” for China: The sheer haplessness of his response hinted at how disoriented the ruling left him. But MAGA exploded: One personality called on the masses to “use whatever force is necessary” to repel “invaders,” a clear threat of violence. Another one, flagged by Media Matters, accused the liberal justices of wanting to “burn the country to the ground” and suggested “men of action” must stop them, also a dark, veiled threat. And Stephen Miller absurdly described the ruling as “national self-obliteration,” which would seem to justify anything in response. We talked to Raul Pinto, deputy legal director of the American Immigration Council. We discuss why the ruling was too close for comfort, how that’s inviting MAGA to wage a longer war to overturn birthright citizenship, how that might unfold, and why there’s cause for cautious optimism about what’s next. Listen to this episode here. A transcript is here.