McCain says fire SEC chair

ThinkProgress.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• mccain
• palin
• fire
• securities
• exchange
• commission
• sec
• chair
• betrayed
• trust

[garygw]

McCain was right. Cox has allowed the ETF's which double and triple short groups of stocks. Big money uses his ignorance to develop trading approaches that drive down the price of stocks. They use the change in the up ticks rules and the lack of enforcement of naked shorting to destroy more capital than Communism. Cox more than anyone is responsible for the crash of 2008....

[dogstar7]

McCain on CBS "60 Minutes" 8/21/08:

By the way, technically he cant be quote, fired. But Ill tell you, when Im president, if I want somebody to resign, they resign.

FAIL!

[dogstar7]

whatever...

[sklanger]

Too funny. The Obama shills here are shilling so hard they cannot admit they are wrong even when they have been utterly and comprehensively demolished.

At last count, the Supreme Court, 2 circuit courts, at least 2 law professors, and a specialty law journal say that McCain is right that the SEC Chair CAN be fired for cause. Obviously, those who say he CAN'T be fired are wrong.

dogstar7 can't provide a cite because his cite is Keith "I play a legal eagle on TV" Olbermann. How I laughed.

[sklanger]

OMG more case law:

"Members of the Commission, in turn, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause; its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President." Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (DC Cir. 2008).

dogstar7, give up. You're only making yourself look like an ignorant douchebag. Everyone from the courts to Professors Sunstein and Bainbridge say you are wrong.

You probably fail at life too. :)

[sklanger]

Stop lying. Earlier, you said that the president "cannot" fire the SEC chair. Now you're changing your tune to "he can but it's unlikely he will".

I like how you're changing the subject from whether he CAN do so to whether he WILL do so. You fail.

And btw, POTUS can "charge" him with inefficiency. Malfeasance is not necessary. There will be no constitutional showdown, because this is not a constitutional matter. It is statutory law, and has nothing to do with the constitution. You idiot.

[sklanger]

I'm an attorney. Of course case law proves the legality of an act, you fool. Roe v. Wade does not merely apply to Jane Roe but to all future women who want to get an abortion.

The future acts of abortion have not happened, but they are nevertheless legal under Roe. Likewise, the legal precedent that finds the removal of an SEC commissioner legal proves the legality of such an act in the future.

Do you have ANY idea at all of how the law works? I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.

[dogstar7]

Case law is only an indication of how an act may be interpreted by the courts if it is contested.

It's unlikely any President will attempt to fire Cox...so this argument is moot on it's face.

It is even less likely that John McCain has the intestinal fortitude to CHARGE Chairman Cox with MALFEASANCE and force a unprecedented CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN...instead of simply SCAPEGOATING him for CHEAP POLITICAL POINTS!

[dogstar7]

For the record:

I've never mentioned Obama in this exchange.

None of Sen. Obama's positions on anything at all have been cited by me as an argument for or against McCain on this issue.

[dogstar7]

sklanger:

Listen, it's useless for me to argue the fine points law with an auto parts counter attendant, Starbucks barrista, Wal*Mart 'associate' or whatever you do for a living.

Case law does not prove the legality of any act...in particular an act that HAS NOT HAPPENED...such as a future (and not to over-stress, unlikely) President John McCain firing SEC Chair Christopher Cox (who says he will step down in January, regardless).