RE: Kavanuagh. Gorpus, Alito and Thomas need to read the legislative record that enacted the federal reserve and try to discern what the legislators thought the term “for cause” meant when they inserted that phrase in the law.
What ever it means, it cannot mean because the President DISAGREES with the Fed Chair on Monetary Policy. If the President did and fired the chair simply because he disagrees with his raising interest rates for instance, he might as well BE the Fed chair and make his own policy.
It seems that the “For cause” clause means corruption or personal gain ( e.g., buying or selling bonds knowing what you personally will do in terms of interest rates ).
“It seems that the “For cause” clause means corruption or personal gain ( e.g., buying or selling bonds knowing what you personally will do in terms of interest rates ).”
Or, quite plausibly, “cause” could also mean that the President has reason to believe that the Fed is making politically-motivated decisions, rather than acting neutrally, in the national interest. POTUS Trump has said that he believes that the Fed is trying to sabotage his economic agenda — and there is some evidence of that. (Actually, given the depth and breadth of the “resistance”; there’s plenty of reason to believe malfeasance could be involved.)
There is, no doubt, extensive common-law on the meaning of “with cause” — from many different cases. In the absence of clarity in the legislative record, that will be the deciding factor (IMHO as a non-lawyer).