SCOTUS Speaks, What Did It Say? - Page 4
- SCOTUS ruling gave president broad power to fire officials, overturning 90-year precedent
- Court carved out exception, ruling Trump cannot fire Fed Chair Powell without cause
- Voting rules, like deadlines, can reduce turnout but also ensure election integrity
SCOTUS Speaks, What Did It Say?
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have sent shockwaves through the nation, leaving many wondering what it means for the future of presidential power and election integrity. In this episode, Tony Katz delves into the implications of the SCOTUS decision on Slaughter and Cook, and what it says about the balance of power in the executive branch.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a 6 to 3 ruling that gave President Trump broad power to fire government officials at will, overturning a 90-year-old precedent. However, in a five to four decision, the court carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, ruling that President Trump cannot fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell without cause. As Martin Sweet, a professor of political science at Purdue University, explains, “The administration was a little bit scared of Jerome Powell, because he was threatening not to leave and could be a key vote in raising interest rates, which would have hurt the president.”
Sweet argues that the administration should take advantage of this decision and fire Powell, who he believes has been obstructionist from the beginning of Trump’s term. “If someone is standing in the way of the president’s agenda in the executive branch, the president ought to fire that person,” Sweet says. “And in this case, Jerome Powell is the reason why the administration blinked.”
The court’s decision also addressed the issue of election ballots, ruling that ballots postmarked by a certain day can be counted later. This has created a burden on Congress, which must now navigate the implications of this decision. Sweet notes that Congress could pass the SAVE Act to clarify the definition of “election” and “voting,” which would essentially overturn the court’s decision. However, this would require Congress to take action and pass the bill.
Sweet acknowledges that any voting restrictions can lead to fewer people voting, he argues that reasonable regulations can be put in place to ensure election integrity without disenfranchising people. “Anytime there is a voting rule, like here’s the time to vote, here’s where you have to vote, any restrictions that are there do lead to fewer people voting,” Sweet says. “That’s just a fact.”
Listen to the “SCOTUS Speaks, What Did It Say?” discussion in full here:
Today’s Popcorn Moment: SCOTUS rulings yesterday and expected today.
MSM freaking out over Slaughter ruling
