upvote
Its a naked power play when placed in context, despite how inoccuous it may seem. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They can be fired by the president unilaterally.

This new rule means that the president only have to get one of "his" guys in, and now you can own all of the SEC decisions if you want by just firing any dissenting commissioners.

In the past, that is the sort of norm that would not be broken. We are now in a world where the president trying to fire fed bankers is real, and that is arguably a much, much, more serious norm to have broken. I don't think this administration will have any issues playing to the letter of the law instead of the spirit.

So with this rule change, the effect is that a president only needs one commissioner and a lack of regard for norms to completely control SEC decisions.

reply
“Seems to be innocuous” is genuinely funny. It must be true for almost all types of corruption and evil that if you zoom in enough, and rob the action of all surrounding context, that it could be described as “innocuous”. How aptly technocratic.
reply
This has been an excellent method to detect high-IQ but actually-retarded people. MAGA actions are distilled to their most procedural possible conception, isolated from all relevant context, and then assessed.

May as well go the full nine yards: "The Enabling Act 2026 appears to actually just be an edit to a .docx file. Hmm... My aloofness is a sign of my intelligence."

reply
Indeed. Highly correlated (but not strictly) with Great Man syndrome, and Elon Musk fanboyism.

This is why we need the humanities. I remember one of my application essays to my university was on the merits of a “Liberal Education”[1] and I’m very grateful that I was able to properly receive one from my institution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education

reply
Removing a requirement for quorum makes the bipartisan-intended commission into a singular role appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the president, like an agency head.
reply
> First, consistent with the current rule, if the number of commissioners in office is two or one, that number is sufficient for a quorum.

Luckily enough, the Supreme Court has given the administration the green light to fire members of commissions at will... save the Fed, because mumble mumble history and tradition mumble.

reply
> because mumble mumble history and tradition mumble

Definitely has nothing to do with SCOTUS's retirement accounts, no sir.

reply
> Definitely has nothing to do with SCOTUS's retirement accounts, no sir.

Who needs retirement accounts when you can just accept gifts-do-not-call-them-bribes?

* https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Nondisclosure_...

reply
Not that innocuous when the commission is intended to be bipartisan but the two Democratic seats are vacant. This change formalizes uniparty rule.
reply
From what I can tell, the only actual change is that the current rule says "two" instead of "two or one" in the last part about what happens if some Commissioners are disqualified with respect to a matter.
reply
It's hard to tell if someone's oblivious or engaging in bad faith these days.
reply
Totally. My first reaction was: "This person must not be from around here."

But my second was: "Oh, no, maybe this is just more targeted ignorance"

reply
You're missing important background here. Federal law requires the commission to be non-partisan, defined as no more than three of the five commissioners being from the same party. But the Trump regime has subverted this rule by simply refusing to appoint more than three commissioners. That's why these quorum shenanigans are necessary. The proponents of this rule are acting in bad faith and will immediately file a lawsuit when the next administration tries to apply it in the other direction.
reply