What interests me most in the telegraph decision of the Supreme Court ending the independent agencies, is the ease with which they reject their governing theories (unitary executive) when the results are those that they find unpleasant (ending the Federal Independence Reserve). Let us take a note by passing that as long as they were going to make this disastrous decision, I am happy that they are also hypocrites and exempt (or will suggest that they will exempt) the federal reserve, because not to do it would have aggravated things.
This is really an article with the presidential immunity decision of 2024. It is clearly the case that the American Constitution does not provide any immunity to the President of Pursuits. You can contest this by absence (it literally does not provide it); You can contest it from the general logic, which is certainly an intrinsically slippery type of argument (no one is above the law); Perhaps the most convincing that you can discuss by the fact that the authors of the Constitution knew a lot of how to provide the immunity in which they thought it should exist and did so in the case of the members of the Congress (speech and debate clause). They knew how to do it and decided not to do it for the presidents. The most generous reading of the aptly named Trump vs United States is that Roberts et al. decided as a question of policy that such immunity should Exist and therefore decided to create it. But it is entirely a creation of the 21st century without any basis in the real constitution.
Do you want to continue reading?
Join TPM and get the newsletter from Backchannel members as well as unlimited access to all articles and features of TPM members.
