Benjamin Weingarten

Senior Contributor @FDRLST | Contributor @RCInvestigates | Columns @nypost et al. | Author: | News:

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Today I am thrilled to announce the release of my new book: "American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party" -- the thesis of which is being borne out in real time. Get your copy today! #AmericanIngrate https://t.co/56MmY5S2lr

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

The electorate is making a choice when it chooses not to get its votes in BY Election Day

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

The Supreme Court torpedoed a global tariff regime, but saw unfit to allow a single Federal Reserve Board Governor to be removed for cause as the president deemed it lest it "sow doubt as to the status of one of the Nation's (and the world's) most important financial institutions."

Think about that.

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

The Roberts Court: "Acceptance of the Government’s position would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference."

When did the Court's view of "our Nation's tradition of central banking" trump the Constitution and the written law -- which provides ZERO "notice and hearing" ?

[May Mailman @MayMailman]

Trump can't fire Fed Board Lisa Cook because she didn't have some way to complain about it -- a hearing of some totally unspecified sort. Thomas in dissent: "The Court ... interprets the Federal Reserve Act to say what it obviously does not."

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

REMINDER: A 6-3 left-wing court would NEVER generate the kinds of outcomes we get from a "6-3 conservative" Roberts Court

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Justice Thomas, as you'd expect, is BASED on The Fed. Was half-expecting a "The Creature from Jekyll Island" reference in his tour de force of a dissent in Trump v. Cook. https://t.co/YW0gG8Hhnd

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Supreme Court: "[I]ndependent agencies are not 'independent' in the sense that they are free of the President and thus responsive 'only to the people of the United States.' - Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Slaughter

Supreme Court, also: "The protection from removal enjoyed by Governors of the Federal Reserve is consistent with the Constitution. The Founders knew from experience the calamities that could arise from even the 'suspicion' of political manipulation of monetary policy...So when they established the First Bank of the United States, they guaranteed its independence from Presidential control, and their successors did the same for the Second Bank...The Federal Reserve follows in this tradition, with a similar degree of independence from Presidential control. What matters is that the Federal Reserve remains consistent with the principles that underpin the First and Second Banks—namely, that monetary policy should not be subject to political interference. In the Court’s view, the Federal Reserve maintains the balance struck by the founding generation under modern circumstances." - Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Cook

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Justice Thomas brings down the hammer on the Federal Reserve Board and the Court's treatment of it as somehow "independent" and distinct from our government/executive branch -- something at odds with the Constitution.

Our greatest justice:

As the Court tells it, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has for the past century served to provide the American people with “‘stable prices,’” “‘maximum employment,’” no “ruinous financial panics,” and a banking system free from “‘suspicion.’”...The Court credits this century of supposed success to the Board’s “independence” from the President, and, in turn, the voters— the “‘common people’” who play the antagonist in the Court’s account of the 19th century.

Many do not share the Court’s rosy appraisal of the past century. But if the Court prefers an independent Federal Reserve Board, then its issue is not with the President but with the Constitution. Regardless of whether unaccountable executive officers like Cook would better govern the economy, the Framers rejected such a “promised land of technocratic governance...” They instead chose government by the people. As a court, our duty is not to second-guess that decision, but to uphold it.

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

The Roberts Court once again in "defending the institution" (read: ruling politically), undermines the Constitution.

Justice Thomas, dissenting in Trump v. Cook:

"Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the Executive Branch. Neither the parties nor the Court can point to a single time in American history that this Court has upheld an injunction against the President’s removal of an executive officer. In the 237-year history of our Constitution, this Court has, by all accounts, never done so."

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Justice Thomas suggests that the Court simply conjures rationales out of thin air when it wants to get to a certain outcome -- in this case insulating a Federal Reserve Board Governor from a president seeking to remove her:

"[A]s far as I am aware, no court ever before today (including the two courts below) has held that any federal statute implicitly requires notice and a hearing when it provides for a term of years limited by removal for cause."

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

SCOTUS says the president can't fire a Federal Reserve Board Governor, despite the fact that in the case of Lisa Cook:

"The President determined that Cook, a principal executive officer, engaged in 'deceitful and potentially criminal conduct' that called into question her 'integrity,' 'competence,' and 'trustworthiness.'...Cook’s job is to regulate the banking economy, but she is alleged to have made facially contradictory representations to obtain her own mortgages by committing to primarily reside in two different places at the same time...The President determined that it was 'inconceivable' that she was unaware of the contradiction and 'impossible' that she 'intended to honor both.' This alleged conduct would have been grounds to remove a loan officer at a bank, let alone someone vested with 'broad powers affecting the entire banking and currency system.'"

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Justice Thomas tells the truth about central banking in the U.S. It really isn't compatible with our republican system of government -- it's a progressive, German import.

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

🚨In sunnier news than the Trump v. Cook ruling -- in which the court said the The Fed trumps the President as some sort of independent branch of government -- in Trump v. Slaughter the court executes Humphrey's Executor.

For-cause removal requirements in executive agencies, it says, violates the separation of powers. A president can fire his subordinates in agencies like the FTC for whatever reason he pleases.

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

In Trump v. Cook the Supreme Court rules that the Federal Reserve trumps the Executive Branch in a 5-4 ruling led by Chief Justice Roberts.

The president doesn't have the right to fire a Fed Governor for cause of apparent mortgage fraud, the Court finds.

The "conservative" SCOTUS strikes!

As Justice Thomas writes in his dissent "The Court makes many policy arguments for an “independent” banking agency that exercises executive power free from accountability...but those are ultimately arguments against the Constitution."

What's more:

"Although the Court expresses concern that the President removed a Board member for 'the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 111-year history,'...it expresses no such concern that it today upholds an injunction against the President’s removal of an executive officer for the first time in the Constitution’s 237-year history."

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

In Chatrie v. U.S., the Supreme Court finds that law enforcement's obtaining of data via "geofencing" constitutes a 4th Amendment search "because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information"

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Israel’s haters have leveraged the relationship with the U.S. to restrain her. They are poised, in working to sever that relationship, not only to lose that influence, but to deprive America of myriad benefits, and to push Israel to seek out partners they may not like

[Elliot Kaufman @ElliotKaufman6]

"Rep. Adam Smith now says he plans to support efforts to strip a provision on US-Israel cooperation from the 2027 NDAA, after arguing strenuously against similar efforts during the committee’s markup of the same bill weeks ago."

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Pragmatic. Moderate.

[Open Source Intel @Osint613]

Fars News: "the Islamic Republic has no choice but to obtain the atomic bomb to remove the military option from the table."

Big statement

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

Commies gonna Commie

[Bill Bishop @niubi]

“China wants to interface with the DSA,” one New York-based political activist told a meeting on October 8 last year of the China Working Group of the DSA’s International Committee, which helps set policy and advises leaders. “If we develop a killer two-week itinerary, hire locals and develop further connections with the CPC [Communist Party of China], then we’re golden,” says the person, whose name is redacted.
https://t.co/Ho03TY2gvS

[Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten]

@WillSammon So how do you assemble a $400M #Mets team that is totally leaderless? Would @StevenACohen2 tolerate that at Point72? Is David Stearns completely in over his leading an organization?

[Ilan Wurman @ilan_wurman]

Actually, no. The Court held that President Trump has the exact same discretion under the immigration laws that his predecessors had, but which for whatever reason lower courts don’t want to recognize Trump can exercise too.