HuffPost0%
How The Supreme Court Twisted Itself In Knots To Line Up These Trump Rulings 48%
By Paul Blumenthal0%
6/29/2026, 9:53:02 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 613 faulty-reasoning hits from 452 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,498 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.50% of the article peer group.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued two back-to-back blockbuster rulings on presidential power with seemingly contradictory findings.
On paper, the two rulings look like a mixed bag for President Donald Trump — one win for his administration, and one loss.
But in reality, both serve his priorities, and the chief priority of the court: protecting and expanding the power of corporations.
In the case of Trump v.
Slaughter, the court sided with Trump to overturn 90 years of precedent, and rule presidents have an unfettered power to fire agency officials for any reason whatsoever that cannot be restricted by for-cause removal protections enacted by Congress.
“We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in that case.
But then, at the same time, in Trump v.
Cook, Roberts said not so fast ― this unquestionable executive power does not apply to the Federal Reserve.
Here, Trump had attempted to fire Federal Reserve Board Gov.
Lisa Cook for cause over made-up claims of mortgage fraud.
“The protection from removal enjoyed by Governors of the Federal Reserve is consistent with the Constitution,” Roberts wrote in that opinion.
It’s a strange circle to square — but Roberts gave it his best try.
“Our prior cases do not necessarily implicate the constitutionality of such arrangements,” Roberts wrote in Slaughter about the for-cause protection carveout for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
“Our opinion today should not be read to do so either.”
In protecting the Federal Reserve’s for-cause removal protections, the court protects banks, investors, corporations and capital flows.
In not protecting the Federal Trade Commission’s protections, and other agencies like it, the court protects the exact same groups.
Just look at what the Federal Trade Commission can do.
As the chief antitrust and consumer protection regulator, it can sue to break up monopolies, investigate and fine large corporations, and enforce consumer protections.
Before Trump came into office, the agency was investigating companies like Amazon and Meta, as well as many others.
It is not an agency that capital looks kindly upon.
“What this decision will do is let what has been a powerful corporate watchdog become a little lapdog for the president’s golfing buddies,” said Graham Steele, a former Treasury Department regulator under President Joe Biden and expert on financial institutions.
“Just how telling it is that this Supreme Court thinks that the bankers on Wall Street need their independent, above-the-fray regulator while the rest of us get stuck with the loyalists.”
That is how the circle is squared for the court’s seeming contradiction.
Speakers
2speakers35%attributed speech292writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageGraham Steele
71 attributed words44% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.