Transcript

🚨SCOTUS Abruptly TURNS ON Trump after ERROR DETECTED

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

January 25, 2026 · 14 min · 2,423 words · 18 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "🚨SCOTUS Abruptly TURNS ON Trump after ERROR DETECTED", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 25, 2026 (14 min, about 2,423 words). It mentions 9 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Federal Reserve, Brett Kavanaugh, Harry Litman, Talking Feds.

What this episode is about

The Supreme Court is reconsidering its support for former President Trump's authority to terminate Federal Reserve governors without sufficient cause, as justices, particularly Justice Kavanaugh, express concerns over the potential implications of granting such expansive executive power. This shift reflects apprehension about the precedent it could set for future administrations, particularly in light of impending midterm elections.

Key takeaways

Justice Kavanaugh's worry isn't just about Trump; it's about handing Democrats a power-play playbook.
For-cause termination? More like a magician’s trick—just say the words and poof! You're fired.
The Supreme Court's fear: Trump’s unlimited power today could haunt justices when a Democrat takes charge tomorrow.
Kavanaugh's revelation: today's inch could become tomorrow's mile; precedent bites back.
When the executive branch can fire at will, who needs checks and balances? Enter the slippery slope.

Who speaks in this episode?

Ben (Guest) · 10 min speaking
Harry Litman (Guest) · 4 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

0:00 – 3:00: Federal Reserve, Dr. Lisa Cook, John Sauer, Donald Trump
3:00 – 6:00: Donald Trump, Harry Litman, Substack, Federal Reserve
6:00 – 9:00: Donald Trump
9:00 – 12:00: Donald Trump
12:00 – 13:54: Donald Trump, Harry Litman, Talking Feds, Substack

Notable quotes from "🚨SCOTUS Abruptly TURNS ON Trump after ERROR DETECTED"

President takes over? And if we, the Supreme Court, are creating precedent that says Donald Trump can just fire all the Federal Reserve governors as long as you just say the magic words for cause.
about Donald Trump · at 1:01
Time. Harry Litman, Talking Feds, YouTube, Talking Feds Podcast, Talking Feds Substack. Great to see you wrote a Substack on this Harry because the real issue the Supreme Court…
about Harry Litman · at 3:11
Everybody make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. Harry Litman Substack, Harry Litman's podcast. Harry, thank you so much.
about Talking Feds · at 13:27

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

Donald Trump — Person · Primary referenced political actor / litigant · 7 mentions · first at 1:06
Central figure in the discussion: the episode frames the Supreme Court argument as testing whether a Trump administration can remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook by asserting a broad 'for-cause' rationale and limiting judicial review.
Brett Kavanaugh — Person · Referenced jurist / key questioner in oral argument · 2 mentions
Portrayed as a pivotal Supreme Court justice expressing concern that expanding presidential removal power (via weak 'for cause') could backfire when a future Democratic president uses the same precedent.
Harry Litman — Person · Referenced expert / guest commentator · 3 mentions · first at 3:11
Cited as an authority (Talking Feds) who analyzed the case (including via Substack) and explains the legal/doctrinal stakes: 'for cause' removal, good-faith presumptions, and risks of empowering future presidents.
Dr. Lisa Cook — Person · Referenced official / subject of removal dispute · 4 mentions · first at 0:07
Discussed as the Federal Reserve Board governor allegedly targeted for removal; her case is used to illustrate how a president might exploit a 'for cause' standard by making accusations without proof.
May have gone too far now because we're looking at our clocks. This is a midterm year. What happens when a Democratic president takes over? And if we, the Supreme Court, are…
John Sauer — Person · Referenced advocate in Supreme Court argument · 2 mentions · first at 1:45
Presented as the solicitor general arguing on behalf of Trump's DOJ position that the executive has broad, largely unreviewable removal power; he is the direct recipient of Kavanaugh’s skeptical hypotheticals.
And they don't like that this board of governors said this on Fox? Can't the president do that? And then John Sauer with his raspy soury voice, basically said, Well, we'll get those hypotheticals. We'll deal with them.

Companies & orgs

Federal Reserve — Company · Business focus · 6 mentions · first at 0:10
Central to the discussion about the Supreme Court's concerns over executive power and the potential firing of its governors.
President takes over? And if we, the Supreme Court, are creating precedent that says Donald Trump can just fire all the Federal Reserve governors as long as you just say the magic words for cause.

Products & tech

Substack — Product · Secondary owned · 3 mentions · first at 3:14
Mentioned as a platform where Harry Litman publishes content related to the podcast's topics.
Blah. He talks so fast. I don't even know what the guy's saying half the time. Harry Litman, Talking Feds, YouTube, Talking Feds Podcast, Talking Feds Substack. Great to see…

Media & podcasts

Talking Feds — Media · Host's product · 2 mentions · first at 3:11
The podcast and associated media products are the primary platform for the discussion.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 The Supreme Court just had a uhoh moment in hearing the oral argument about why the Trump regime fired Lisa Cook. One of the governors on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve. some of the right-wing justices, particularly Justice Kavanagh, said, "Uh, you know, we've pushed pretty hard for you, Donald, to allow you to kind of have this agenda where you're firing everybody and now we gave you an inch and you're going an inch more and we give you another inch and you're basically taking everybody's lives and now you want Lisa Cook, based on your own view of what constitutes for cause termination, uh, to basically just push her off the board of governors or the Federal Reserve as long as you just make an accusation of for cause termination that it doesn't even have to be proven.

0:51 And the right-wing justices are like, we may have gone too far now because we're looking at our clocks. This is a midterm year. What happens when a Democratic president takes over? And if we, the Supreme Court, are creating precedent that says Donald Trump can just fire all the Federal Reserve governors as long as you just say the magic words for cause. And if Trump's able to have all of these sweeping powers, can't they be wielded by a Democratic president as well? And Donald, you're asking us to make written rulings, and our written rulings in the Supreme Court carry with it in theory presidential value. we're not going to be able to overturn the things we say here, you know, in three years when a Democratic president comes into power if that's what ends up happening. So, you actually heard Justice Kavanaaugh using that. He was saying that basically in his push back to John Sauer, the

1:47 solicitor general who argues on the Trump's DOJ behalf because Trump's DOJ basically says we have limitless power. Courts can't review it. Sound familiar? The executive branch gets to do whatever the executive branch wants. And when it comes to the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, yes, Supreme Court, you previously said that we can't do without cause terminations, without going through a process. The executive branch just can't say, "Aha, but you kept on the for cause." So, we just say for cause. We don't we don't have to actually go and prove it. There's no criminal case. There's no conviction.

2:21 There's no whatever. We just say for cause. So, we we figured out a trick, the Supreme Court, to get around it. and Kavanaaugh literally said during the oral argument. So doesn't that mean though that in a future administration, let's just take a hypothetical and then Kavanaaugh and Gorsuch and people like that, you know, give like hypotheticals. What if a Democratic president comes into power and they think the environment is really important and now they just want to get rid of all of these people because their views of the environment are different? What if a Democratic uh president comes into power and they don't like that this board of governors said this on Fox? Can't the president do that? And then John Sauer with his raspy soury voice, you know, basically said, "Well, we'll get those hypotheticals. We'll deal with them.

3:05 We'll deal with them, but we got to deal with them." But Donald Trump wants blah blah blah. He talks so fast. I don't even know what the guy's saying half the time. Harry Litman, Talking Feds, YouTube, Talking Feds Podcast, Talking Feds Substack. Great to see you wrote a Substack on this Harry because the real issue the Supreme Court is worried about it's kind of like when we talk about Donald Trump mid decade redistricting um which is the gerrymandering. It's that kind of uh dilemma that the Supreme Court's seeing. Donald Trump is like okay Texas you give us five and uh and then everybody else you give us this that and the other. And then the Democrats go, "Okay, we don't want to do this. We want to ban gerrymandering in general, but if you're going to do it, we're going to do it." California gets five. In Virginia, they're talking about 10 to one, pick up four additional seats, and before you know it, you look

3:56 at it and it's like, "So, Donald, you just gave the Democrats a plus five advantage because you wanted to do a mid decade redistricting, and you didn't think through the next step." So someone like Justice Kavanaaugh is looking at it and he's like, "Okay, we may screw ourselves over in the long run if we do this." And they may even be thinking, Harry, what about our jobs? I mean, I know it's not directly related, you know, because to the board of governors, but the Supreme Court saying, if we make rulings that say executive branch has no limits, don't you just go ne don't you climb the the ladder and say, "Okay, Federal Reserve, we got you. Supreme Court, why not say your for clause terminated? Are we going to get ourselves fired by giving the executive branch all this power? So, talk to us about it, Harry. It's a really interesting point because look, the notion they they admitted here, they

4:49 conceded that the four cause requirement is okay and and constitutional. That's a whole different uh issue. But what about then? What was what was Kavanaaugh saying when he said the Democrats when they come in will do this thing if we have a weak for cause? He was saying what's the risk? You'll profer some weak for cause thing but it will really be based on policy differences. The thing that everyone has to agree everyone did agree the president can fire based on. So what's the problem here? as I put it in my substack, the problem is you happen to have as president a lying liar who wakes up lying and lies all day. Uh which I make an acronym and say again and again. But that's the issue because if it weren't that there's no real world aspect, everybody everybody understands that this social me the way this whole thing went down. Trump issues a social media uh tweet about this supposed mortgage fraud problem and fires Lisa

5:56 Cook. That's 100% And yet, what did Sour have to get up and say? Literally, it was it was uh you know, almost um a joke. He had to get up and make this big point about how very serious having one discrepancy on your mortgage application before you even came to the Fed somehow was a complete uh heinous crime that would undermine the markets. But nobody believed it. Everybody understood that what's at stake in ha in a having a weak for cause standard is the prospect that a president and it's not a president it's this president will lie because this president in all the instances you made always does lie it's the same problem that you and I have been worried about when we've spoken about it by you know Donald Trump saying it's a rebellion give me emergency powers and don't don't second guessess me I'll go from there it's an insurrection maybe or you know any kinds of assertions that are again complete garbage because he is

7:02 a president who is a lying liar who wakes up lying and lies all day. So, it's the general Trump issue and it runs headlong into Supreme Court uh doctrine that I've been worried about in all these cases that says, "Oh, we assume the good faith of the president." And that's what Sour said. He made a big deal about it. And this case, they're not going to even though in their minds they know what's going on. Everybody knows the score. You've got a president who is a lying liar and wakes up lying in the lines all day. Um, but they won't they won't put that in their polite writing. Uh, you know, that is the ultimate Trumpian uh problem. And there are cases that if they spout it, it could really hurt the national interest or give him all kinds of power. But it was so clear uh when Kavanaaugh is saying stuff like that, what he's understanding is what if the next guys do what Trump is doing here, saying he's

7:59 really concerned about the mortgage application papers, but we all know what's going on. It's policy differences. We can't call it a lie. Oh, no. That would be good faith. But let's talk about the real world. And that means let's don't we all understand we've got a president who's a lying liar and wakes up lying and lies all day.

8:21 You know he was empowered by this. I I we know he's empowered by the Supreme Court. It's obvious. I just always reflect on the Brazilian Supreme Court sends their insurrectionist president to prison for 20 plus years and then the moment there's any uh sign of attempting to flee or collude with the United States to flee the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Brazil. Oh, boom. Get the guy arrested right now. Lock him up. Boom. That's Brazil. The United States Supreme Court overrides all of our courts and says absolute immunity. And it's like, yeah, but the whole history of our country was founded on the idea that absolute immunity in the king is something that we don't want. And it's such a predictable result that follows where you give a person king-like powers of absolute immunity. The fact that the person's asking for that probably tells you they're going to try to wield it and

9:14 use it inappropriately. That's why no one else has asked for it as a president in the history of this country other than this guy, other than this c this criminal, this felon, you know, and and you know, and so now this whole this whole term, Harry, and I'll throw it to you before we go, which is this whole term, it to me is a massive Supreme Court coverup of their absolute immunity decision where now they're so cowardly to refuse to acknowledge what they do that they use a shadow docket to stay district court orders but not rule on the merits of these decisions. So they allow Trump's policies to stay in effect without ruling on them at this stage. I think to preserve rulings in a few years after the Trump regime so they can try to swoop back in and be like ah you see we're not all that bad. We just had to let these cases come back up and then we were going to create the president. But this allows them, I think, in their own

10:16 sociopathic minds, the right-wing Supreme Court justices, at least, we're not ruling on the merits and saying what Trump's doing is okay. We're just saying that he's argued a reparable harm and so we're going to stay the district court's ruling. And so we'll come back to you in a little bit. To me, it's a cover. It's a massive cover up of their absolute immunity ruling. And I bet you come back, rewind this tape, three three four years from now, there'll be a Democratic president in power hopefully and these cases will work their way up to the Supreme Court and they'll issue these long pronouncements condemning Donald Trump in abstentia. You see, this was our plan all along that that's what my predict what they what they're going to try to set up from your from your lips.

10:58 Anyway, um you're since you mentioned the shadow docket, that's a that was a big feature of this Cook case. You have Justice Alo saying why are we hurrying so much and whether we so this is underdeveloped and hasn't been uh decided yet. Um no Why is that? Because they reached down took it on on this emergency docket and and and an entered the goddamn stay which is what they do all the time. And then there was all this stuff that wasn't done and they were all fllemix. Well, how are we supposed to uh decide this now? she didn't seem to get notice, you know, at at all, um, etc. But that, of course, is was their um exact doing. I I just want to, you know, reiterate what came home uh to me is it's got nothing to do with Donald Trump. It really doesn't have to do with exec with the constitutional separation of powers. They've been absolutely taken a buzzsaw through independent agencies. No, no, no. for

12:01 cause, no for cause, say whatever you want or nothing. And the at least the virtue of that is is, you know, Trump doesn't have to lie. But everybody says for the Fed, no, we need that. So you better have a four cause requirement. And that's just for Donald Trump an invitation to make up when everybody knows. It's the it's an interesting position of the court. And that's why I thought Kavanaaugh, right, the S the the guy who's most often in the majority coming out and basically making this point um one portended a loss for Trump up there. Okay. But they they understand the markets. You got to do something for the Fed even though it's totally inconsistent with all our constitutional jurist prudence because otherwise if people believe it's whatever Trump says and what he he wants to mess around with the markets, guess what? It'll it'll send the US economy, maybe the world economy into a tail

12:57 spin. We can't have that happen. Everybody's got 401ks. So, it just because there's a four cause requirement left. It totally puts front and center this huge problem that in general the judiciary tries to wear blinders and um presume away which is you know the completely mendacious thousands by thousands of documented lies of the occupant of the White House.

13:27 Everybody make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. Harry Litman Substack, Harry Litman's podcast. Harry, thank you so much.

13:36 Hey, thanks Ben. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "🚨SCOTUS Abruptly TURNS ON Trump after ERROR DETECTED"?

Ben (Guest), Harry Litman (Guest).

What is "🚨SCOTUS Abruptly TURNS ON Trump after ERROR DETECTED" about?

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

9 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Federal Reserve, Brett Kavanaugh, Harry Litman, Talking Feds, Dr. Lisa Cook. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "🚨SCOTUS Abruptly TURNS ON Trump after ERROR DETECTED"?

The episode runs 14 min; the transcript is about 2,423 words in 18 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 25, 2026.