In a display of judicial theater so hollow it could serve as a wind tunnel for the ghosts of Founding Fathers who never actually intended for any of this to happen, the Supreme Court has finally deigned to hear arguments regarding the orange-hued wrecking ball’s attempt to eject Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. We are told, with the breathless sincerity of a third-rate high school drama club, that this is the most significant challenge to the Fed’s independence since 1913. One must first subscribe to the quaint, bordering on delusional, notion that the Federal Reserve has ever been truly independent of the political sludge that birthed it. It is a charming myth, much like the idea that the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter of law rather than a collection of robed ghouls engaged in high-stakes partisan cosplay.

The core of the matter, as always, is the clash between a man who views the entire U.S. government as his personal vending machine and a technocratic priesthood that believes it can fine-tune the global economy by twiddling a few dials while the building burns down around them. On one side, we have the former president’s legal team, arguing that the 'Unitary Executive' theory grants the Commander-in-Chief the divine right to fire anyone who doesn't sufficiently grease the wheels of his ego. On the other, we have the Fed’s defenders, shrieking that if the President can fire a Governor for failing to perform a ritualistic interest rate cut on command, the entire global financial system will evaporate into a cloud of useless fiat smoke. The irony, of course, is that the system is already a cloud of useless fiat smoke; they’re just arguing over who gets to hold the matches.

Lisa Cook, a woman whose credentials are being treated by the Right as a personal insult to the concept of math and by the Left as a sacred relic of progress, is merely the sacrificial lamb in this particular arena. The Right views the Fed as a nest of 'Deep State' vipers, ignoring the fact that they spent decades cheering for the very neoliberal policies that built this nest. They want the Fed destroyed not because they understand monetary policy, but because they have the attention spans of goldfish and want cheap money now to buy more plastic junk they don't need. They see Trump as a heroic iconoclast rather than a man who simply hates any authority he cannot personally bully into submission.

Meanwhile, the Left is clutching its pearls over 'the sanctity of the institution.' These are the same people who, five minutes ago, were decrying the Fed as a tool of the billionaire class and a primary engine of wealth inequality. Now, suddenly, the Fed is a bastion of democratic stability that must be protected at all costs from the grubby hands of the populist mob. Their hypocrisy is as predictable as it is exhausting. They don't love the Fed; they just love the status quo because it’s the only thing keeping their performative moralizing funded by a steady stream of venture capital and government grants.

As the nine justices sit upon their elevated benches, pretending to weigh the nuances of 111-year-old legislation, the reality remains that this is nothing more than a jurisdictional dispute between two different types of parasites. Do we want our economic ruin dictated by a single, erratic narcissist who thinks the 'prime rate' is something you order at a steakhouse, or do we want it managed by a committee of unelected academics who haven't seen the inside of a grocery store since the Carter administration? It is a choice between a sudden, violent car crash and a slow, agonizing descent into a swamp.

The arguments presented in court are a masterclass in obfuscation. They speak of 'statutory protections' and 'removal for cause,' avoiding the glaring truth that the 'cause' is simply that Cook represents a check on absolute power, however feeble. The Fed was designed in 1913 to give the illusion of stability to a system that is inherently unstable. It was a compromise between the robber barons of the Gilded Age and the politicians they owned. To suggest that its 'independence' is a foundational pillar of the Republic is like suggesting that the independence of a casino’s croupier is what keeps the gambling honest.

In the end, the Court will likely issue a ruling that satisfies no one while further eroding the public’s tenuous grip on reality. They will find a way to split the difference, or perhaps they will lean into the authoritarian curve, but it hardly matters. Whether the Fed is 'independent' or a direct appendage of the White House, the outcome for the average citizen remains the same: your currency is being devalued, your labor is being exploited, and the people at the top are too busy fighting over who gets to wear the crown to notice that the throne is sitting on a powder keg. We are watching a slow-motion collapse, and the only thing more pathetic than the participants is the audience that still believes any of this theater will save them.