How would you attempt to answer that question, knowing what we know in this

ruling, if in fact, the allegations against Lisa Cook were

proven? Would that cause be acknowledged as

suitable for firing or not? Well, I think, you know, the Supreme

Court's decision today makes clear that they are giving an additional measure of

protection to fed governors that they're not given to people who are

commissioners or leaders, that other independent agencies, which doesn't

really have a lot of internal coherence, but they certainly seem to be giving

deference to the fed. A lot of people are noting that, you

know, this court is generally very, uh, pro big business and, uh, business

interests support having a healthy, independent Federal Reserve.

And so that could be one reason why they're treating it different than the

Federal Trade Commission, which often works to protect, um, individual

consumers, workers, everyday Americans. But I think it's unclear it's clear that

the Supreme Court is saying that the, uh, fed statutory requirements, of

course, apply to Lisa Cook so she can't just be removed for no reason.

Um, that she deserves some notice and procedure in order to respond to the

allegations against her. Now, if there is a termination that, um,

you know, she has committed some wrongdoing, then presumably there would

be more litigation about whether that, uh, qualifies.

Um, the allegations, of course, are mortgage fraud.

She responds and says it's just, you know, simply a slight discrepancy in

paperwork. So, you know, with proper notice, with

proper procedure, um, you know, the allegations seem pretty flimsy and

probably wouldn't go forward. Really interesting.

Uh, the court stopped short of clarifying that, which is why I start

there with you, Elizabeth, and I'd love to hear more from you about the

slaughter case. This overturns.

It's A63 decision, overturns a 1935 precedent that laid the legal groundwork

for the modern administrative state. Uh, Justice Sonia Sotomayor I mentioned

a couple of moments ago, said the majority.

This is in her dissent. The majority abandoned the doctrine of

standing behind precedents. Is that the case?

Is that true? Yes, that is certainly true.

And the case you mentioned is a case called Humphrey's Executor and has

become famous in sort of the conservative legal movement as something

that, uh, proponents of a very strong, often unitary executive is the term they

use where the executive has, uh, incredible, extraordinary power.

Um, they have been seeking to overturn

Humphreys executor for quite a long time.

That's been a major goal of the conservative legal movement, which was

achieved today, as Justice Sotomayor um, argues against in her dissent.

And, you know, the idea is you you only overturn cases that people have relied

upon for decades when there is a good reason to.

Um, and Justice Sotomayor certainly says there is no good reason to today, um,

it's important to preserve the independence of FTC commissioners in the

same way that it's important to preserve the importance of the fed.

Um, and so the rationale between, uh, saving one and not saving the other

doesn't seem to be based in constitutional text, history or

statutory differences. Um, uh, really?

It seems to be more about which agency the conservative supermajority thinks,

um, is more important to insulate from presidential interference.

Well, it's interesting that, you know, you just wonder if this leads to

a massive round of firing with every administration.

I know there's a lot of turnover that comes with that.

Uh, but beyond some of the more obvious positions, does every president just

fire everybody and start from scratch? I think that is certainly a fear.

And, you know, the idea of insulating these commissioners of these important

agencies, you know, who are tasked with really protecting the American people,

um, in both economic, uh, civil rights, all sorts of different ways.

The idea of preserving their independence some way and having lengthy

terms that cut across presidential terms is to have some continuity, to have some

consistency, to have institutional memory and, um, ensure that they're not

just following, you know, based political whims, obviously.

Um, you know, they're part of the executive.

But, you know, I think the concern here is that particularly in the Trump

administration, when you see a lot of attacks on the civil service and the

ability of government employees to, you know, act in that public interest, not

necessarily just follow, uh, Trump's interest when it conflicts with the

American people's interests. That's really part of the concern.

But certainly, if you can, you know, fire for, um, any reason at all, fire at

will commissioners, you know, it is likely that'll be used by presidents of

both parties. Elizabeth, I've got less than a minute

left. People have been asking the question, is

this an ideological court or simply a loyal one when it comes to a man named

Donald Trump? Did today's rulings help to answer that

question? I don't think they fully did.

I think it's unquestionably an ideological court.

You see, major goals of the conservative legal movement achieved this term with

the absolute demolition of the Voting Rights Act, which is a tragedy for

America. And today, with the overturning of

protections of, uh, political appointees who are there to protect the American

people.