Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor makes a point as she answers questions during the third day of her U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in Washington July 15, 2009.
Sotomayor accuses conservative justices of ‘power grab’
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday did not mince words in a dissenting opinion over the Supreme Court’s ruling that limits the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, accusing the conservative majority of making a “power grab” by undermining the enforcement power of federal agencies.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the SEC’s in-house tribunals that are overseen by administrative law judges who report to federal agencies — as opposed to federal courts — violated the right to a trial by jury.
What’s the big deal? The decision hampers the SEC’s ability to penalize people it thinks have committed fraud. It could also have major implications for the enforcement powers of other regulatory agencies.
“Litigants seeking further dismantling of the ‘administrative state’ have reason to rejoice in their win today, but those of us who cherish the rule of law have nothing to celebrate,” Sotomayor wrote.
SCOTUS ain’t done. The court has not yet issued rulings in the Trump immunity case or the case pertaining to Jan. 6 rioters, both of which touch on hot-button issues as the country barrels toward a presidential election that many voters are not especially enthused about.
GameStop stock rally gives policymakers opportunity for legislation
Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, offers insights on US politics:
First question. Stonks! Will the GameStop stock rally result in new regulation on Wall Street?
The answer is probably, but the interesting thing is, we have no idea what form that regulation might take. The interesting thing about this storyline around GameStop is that the run-up in prices, driven by social media chatter on Reddit, against hedge funds who had shorted the stock, opens up a whole can of worms for how you want to solve the issue, and is most likely going to be an outlet for members of Congress preexisting biases. If you want to regulate hedge funds, well, here's an excuse to do so. If you want to implement a financial transaction tax, this is your opportunity. If you're concerned about consumer protection, data privacy, this could be a hook to get into those issues as well. So, this is a headline grabbing event that's probably going to fade out of the news in a week or so, but it's going to stay relevant to policymakers for several more months, could potentially result in new legislation, or new regulation from the SEC based around investor protection and market structure. So, stay tuned. We're going to be hearing about GameStop for a long time.
Second question. What is the future for the legislative filibuster?
Well, as part of the Senate's organizing resolutions, two Democratic senators made public commitments that they were not going to vote to change the legislative filibuster. This is the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass legislation. With 50 Democratic members in the Senate, you need all 50 to agree to change the rules. They only have 48 votes right now at the most. This means it's probably not going to happen. Now, these two senators could change their mind down the road, Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona, Joe Manchin, from West Virginia. There's probably a handful of other senators who also oppose changing the rules but haven't done so publicly. The other thing they could do is pass legislation using the reconciliation process, which has guard rails around it that limited to only budget and tax legislation, but change the rules of the reconciliation process, to supercharge their ability to pass legislation with only 50 votes without changing the legislative filibuster. Something to keep an eye on, we expect at least two big pieces of legislation this year to pass through the reconciliation process, giving multiple opportunities to try to change those rules and erode the norms around reconciliation.