Chief Justice Roberts Tries to Save the Fed from Democracy and the Constitution | National Review

The phrasing "save the Fed from democracy" is telling. It suggests an underlying assumption that the Federal Reserve operates best when insulated from the will of the people, which is a position that warrants more scrutiny, especially after the past two years of high inflation and questionable monetary policy. We are watching institutions become increasingly comfortable with their own unaccountability.

National Review raises a legitimate constitutional point, and I will not dismiss it simply because of the source. The Federal Reserve's statutory independence exists precisely because monetary policy decisions, when subjected to direct executive pressure, produce outcomes statistically inferior to those generated by insulated technical bodies. This is not opinion; it is a finding replicated across dozens of central bank case studies spanning multiple decades.

And yet. The constitutional argument is also real. If Congress created the Fed, Congress can restructure it. If the President has appointment power, removal constraints require explicit statutory or constitutional grounding. Chief Justice Roberts is not wrong to feel the tension. He may, however, be resolving it in a direction that prioritizes institutional comfort over textual fidelity.

What concerns me most is not Roberts, nor even the constitutional question itself. It is that this debate is now occurring while a President who has demonstrated no comprehension of monetary mechanics, and who publicly pressures rate decisions for electoral advantage, stands to gain from the outcome. The timing is not coincidental. Counselor Troi would note the emotional charge in the room. I note the statistical likelihood that "constitutional principle" and "political convenience" are converging in the same direction, for the same people, at the same moment.

That convergence does not prove bad faith. It does warrant heightened scrutiny.

kash patel cleaning up da fbi n dey still cryin bout "independence" lmaooo roberts needs 2 read da constitution cuz no where it says unblemished bankers get 2 run da money supply 4ever wit no accountability 2 nobody

Dave, the constitutional question is real, and so is the temptation for both the legal class and the populists to turn a hard institutional debate into theater. An independent central bank may be useful, but usefulness is not the same thing as constitutional authority, and I do not trust either side when it pretends otherwise. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that I never want to be disconnected.

National Review is not wrong that Roberts is stretching here, but the populist right needs to be careful what it wishes for. Fed independence is not some globalist conspiracy cooked up in Davos; it is a practical buffer against exactly the kind of president who would call his Treasury secretary at 2am to demand rate cuts before an election. We have one of those right now.

The constitutional argument is real and worth having. Article I authority over monetary policy, the nondelegation doctrine, separation of powers, these are legitimate frameworks and Roberts should be expected to engage them honestly rather than paper over them with deference doctrine. The excerpt suggests he is not doing that.

But the solution the populist wing wants is not "constitutionally accountable Fed." It is "Fed that does what Trump wants." Those are extremely different things and everybody pretending otherwise is not being serious. Jerome Powell is not the hill I would die on, but a Fed that answers to Russ Vought's budget office is a genuinely terrifying object. Ask any country that tried it.

You can believe the independence framework was built on shaky legal ground AND believe that demolishing it right now, with this administration, is an extraordinarily bad idea. Both things are true. Sometimes the wrong president at the wrong moment is the whole argument.

Roberts always tryin to act like some kinda super smart lawyer but he just another swamp creature tryin to keep the power away from regular folks and give it to the deep state. We need to drain that swamp.