But, but, but not Lisa Cook.

The USA Constitution does not mention the Federal Reserve. It does provide Congress with the responsibility for the coinage of the country. It implicates the Federal Reserve created in 1913 is outside the reach of the Executive Branch.

The Congress shall (click here) have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

June 29, 2026
By Lawrence Hurley 

The Supreme Court (click here) on Monday delivered a setback to President Donald Trump, rejecting his attempt to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, while in a separate case giving him a freer hand to exert control over other hitherto independent federal agencies....

It really makes no sense now to have independent federal agencies if they are not part of the checks and balances of the government. I think it relates to the ravages of DOGE. Just get rid of federal authority that inhibits greed and unethical conduct. 

There is a "thing" about the federal agencies the Republicans do not like. The federal agencies within and without the government has power to levy fines and collect them. Where that power falls apart is the fines are often a result of regulation without a court proceedings. There is the argument any and all fines should be granted or not of the federal government through the courts. I think that is the ideology the conservative judges are acting on outside the case of Lisa Cook. I also believe it is a very weak ideology as it is highly unethical when the USA Congress gave the agencies the power to levy fines on their behalf. When fines and judgements have to go through the courts to be enforced it takes time away from the protections of the public. It creates uncertainty in the federal authority. The agencies can act to apply federal regulations without the ability to enforce the penalties that enforce the law.

Here again stare decisis is sacrificed by the Robert's Court. It is a very bad habit of this court to disregard the importance of the authorities legislated to protect the public and ensure rights are upheld.

The decision today is more than about the money. It validates the assault.

It was sexual assault. Privilege. Trump believes no different than the other patrons of the Epstein network he is privileged and can do as he pleases with impunity.

"Just take it."

June 29, 2026

By Alison Durkee

The Supreme Court (click here) issued an order Monday saying it would not take up Trump’s appeal of the ruling in Carroll’s favor, but did not explain its decision at all or give any indication of whether any justices would have taken it up.

A jury ruled in Carroll’s favor in 2023, finding Trump abused Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s and then defamed her when she went public with the allegations, though it declined to find him liable for rape.

That verdict was then upheld by an appeals court, which Trump asked the Supreme Court to reconsider, claiming Carroll’s claims against Trump were “implausible” and “politically motivated.”

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case means Trump will have to pay Carroll the $5 million the jury awarded her in the case, as well as interest that has accrued on the judgment.

The case is separate from Carroll’s other defamation case against Trump, in which she was awarded $83.3 million for Trump defaming her, though the president has suggested he could also ask the high court to take up that case after an appeals court upheld the ruling.

Trump’s legal team decried the Carroll case as a “witch hunt” Monday and said in a statement the president “will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare.”...

How fantastic is this?

 The first woman Speaker of the House has carried a burden in this democracy not asked of other speakers. This is wonderful news. We will always have her wisdom and insight through the work laid down by her institution of democracy. 

(click here)

A nonpartisan academic initiative led by UC Berkeley and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi aims to bolster democracy through research, education, and public engagement. The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy, launching in January and anchored in Berkeley’s political science department, will pursue four pillars: strengthening democratic institutions, addressing societal and planetary challenges, promoting civil rights, and ensuring inclusive political leadership. Pelosi will contribute academically by co-teaching a Congress course as she shifts into retirement....