Supreme Court to consider multi-pronged constitutional attack on SEC - SCOTUSblog
www.scotusblog.com
The argument on Wednesday in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy will present a remarkable spectacle of three entirely distinct constitutional challenges to wholly disparate attributes of the SEC. Ordinarily, the ability of the justices to control their docket would allow them to wait on e

"The Case that could destroy the government" - The Atlantic

"Supreme Court Hearing SEC Case Today: Here’s Why It’s Panicked Government Experts — And Excited Trump Fans" - Forbes

"US Supreme Court signals it could limit SEC in-house enforcement" - Reuters

"A Supreme Court case about stocks could help make Trump’s authoritarian dreams reality" - Vox [just an incredible headline lmfao]

"One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Could Also Be the Most Devastating" - Slate

Oral Argument - CSPAN

  • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    1 year ago

    The SEC having their own judicial control is kind of wild though, especially when the Chair is often held by people coming from hedge funds (like the current Gary Gensler - ex Goldman Sachs banker).

    What would be the issue with giving the elected leader control instead of the unelected one? Even if Trump did get in, the next president after him could fire anyone he hires for that judicial branch so I'm not sure what the issue is here

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      The SEC isn’t running a court here. They are taking a case to an administrative court just like any other federal agency. Dude here wants to say that departments can’t do that. This would push everything into district courts and just back everything up.

      • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would imagine these administrative judges aren't elected though, as one article says they're "promoted based on merit" which just means whoever has the best connections wins the spot (albeit they have to look somewhat good on paper for presentation)

        Maybe this isn't the way to go, but being able to directly/indirectly vote in or out judges I think would be in the public's best interest. Especially if the lack of a jury in these trials thing is true from that same article

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          If these courts go then immigration courts should be next. They are literally part of that executive branch (specifically the attorney general’s office) and you can’t easily appeal to a real court.