Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 5d

Politico really undersells how legally bonkers this argument is.

RIFing employees is agencies' individual decisions, but is pursuant to the President's inherent constitutional authority.

2 11

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 6d

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.

1 4

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 6d

Boy, do I hear you.

1

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 6d

But will the courts? Tbd...

2

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 9d

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.

1 3

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 9d

I argue in Democracy Journal that regulatory independence is a progressive value. It's necessary for our high standard of living and serves as a rejection of backroom dealmaking and governing on the basis of campaign donations and bribes.

Read it here: democracyjournal.org/arguments/am...

America Needs Independent Regulators

A future Democratic President will be tempted to use power like Trump. That would be a mistake.

democracyjournal.org

2 7 13

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 14d

@jamellebouie.net, please do a column about how the same logic applies to other independent agencies, like the Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n. Though everyone is focused on the Fed, I spoke to a former NRC chair who told me that they're scared of a Fukushima disaster on US soil b/c of the UET.

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 14d

to me, the “column” is less a form than an opportunity (and a challenge). you’re telling me i have as much space as i’d like to make an argument about anything i’d like to an audience inclined to pay close attention? well let’s see if they’ll read 2000 words on democratic legitimacy. (gift link)

Opinion | This Is About So Much More Than Lisa Cook

www.nytimes.com

3 8

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 15d

Oooooh!

1

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 16d

If you're Hill staff (D or R) you're worried about losing minority party commissioners, please reach out. @nicholasbednar.bsky.social and I are speaking staff about legislative language that we think could mitigate some of the losses from the Supreme Court. We'd love to speak with you, too.

1 1

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 20d

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

6

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 20d

Very interesting that the Administration's application to the Supreme Court makes clear it is not challenging the constitutionality of the Fed's for cause removal protections. This won't be a chance to directly overrule Humphrey's.

3 8 32

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 20d

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.

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 20d

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.

1 2

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 22d

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.

1 4

Todd Phillips @tphillips.bsky.social · 22d

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.

1 1