Sure seems like a yield amendment was going to pass the Banking Committee, and that's why Coinbase blew up the markup!

Oh, sorry! Numbers #7 and #8 in your thread. I just re-read them and realized that you're saying what the conservative justices could think. Yes, they could think this. I think they'd be wrong (for the reasons I wrote), but they certainly could think it!

(That Fed majority could fire reserve bank presidents under Free Enterprise Fund, thus taking control of the FOMC, which is the interest-rate setting body.) 2/2

I'm not sure this is right. Trump hasn't tried to fire Powell, but he did "fire" Cook. I'll bet the only reason he didn't fire another governor was because SCOTUS didn't allow Cook to be removed.

If SCOTUS allowed two governors to be removed, that'd give Trump a Fed majority. 1/

Yes! I even wrote a paper about how more progressives should have been cheering Loper Bright!

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I think law profs need to be very clear about whether they're acting as professors or in their personal capacities. I don't think litigating is within the role of a TT academic, and I (try to) include disclaimers in my amicus briefs that I'm filing in my personal capacity.

Courts don't let regulators redefine "negligence" as they want, so they shouldn't allow regulators to redefine "unsafe or unsound" either.

(I also continue my Sisyphusian effort to get regulators to stop using the term "matters requiring attention.") 3/3

I found this in the Congressional Record. The term "unsafe or unsound practices" was considered to have a concrete definition, like "fraud" or "negligence. Legislators were concerned that it was too open-ended, but were ultimately convinced that the term was "sufficiently exact." 2/

I have no idea what they're thinking. I have to believe it's a plan to just grab all the money before courts shut it down, but then they face treble damages from Statutes of Anne once it is shut down.

www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/202...

Unless they actually think they're going to win...

Yeah, that's just a bizarre article.

I agree with @evanbernick.bsky.social: They're just not consistent opinions. This issue wasn't briefed. My sense is he's just winging it.

Judicial opinions make more sense when you think of judges as people just acting like people.

Ooh, good catch! Does Kavanaugh know that? If so, then I have no idea what he means.

I think it's a reference to the interior of the country, since different rules apply within the 100-mile border enforcement zone.

(Note, this is why it's a big deal that the Administration moved CBP officers (who normally operate within that zone) over to ICE (who don't).)

Just doing my part to make the world a better place

I have no doubt that the CFTC could do a bang-up job regulating these contracts if they are hedging instruments. But if they're gambling, the CFTC just doesn't have the necessary regulatory authorities.

It's up to courts to decide these contracts' status. 6/6

Third, just because Kalshi has self-certified that a contract is a derivative, or even if the CFTC agrees that a contract is a derivative, doesn't mean it is. Courts decide. And if courts find a contract is not a commodity derivative, there is no way state law is preempted. 5/

To be clear, it's not just me saying that these contracts are unlikely to be derivatives. Kalshi told the DC Circuit last year that "contracts relating to games—again, activities conducted for diversion or amusement—are unlikely to serve any 'commercial or hedging interest.'" 4/

Second, sports events are generally not commodities, because they're not associated with financial consequences. Kalshi offers a contract about whether an announcer says "what a catch" during a broadcast. There is no way this contract can be used to hedge. 3/