╌>

Supreme Court: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding doesn't violate Constitution | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  evilone  •  4 weeks ago  •  16 comments

By:   AP News

Supreme Court: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding doesn't violate Constitution | AP News
The Supreme Court has rejected a conservative-led attack that could've undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Supreme Court sides with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, spurning a conservative attack


?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Fc0%2F20%2Faa1d8510397f56948748dc94a9d8%2F984cf3b04bf748b2bcb2346b7fb65e4e

FILE - The U.S. Supreme Court is seen, April 25, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a conservative-led attack that could have undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The justices ruled 7-2 that the way the CFPB is funded does not violate the Constitution, reversing a lower court.

The CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crisis to regulate mortgages, car loans and other consumer finance. The case was brought by payday lenders who object to a bureau rule.

The CFPB case is among several major challenges to federal regulatory agencies on the docket this term for a court that has for more than a decade been open to limits on their operations. The CFPB, the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, has long been opposed by Republicans and their financial backers.

Unlike most federal agencies, the consumer bureau does not rely on the annual budget process in Congress. Instead, it is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, with a current annual limit of around $600 million.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans, in a novel ruling, held that the funding violated the Constitution's appropriations clause because it improperly shields the CFPB from congressional supervision.

?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F8f%2F8d%2F8b84d2250608bbc72496baf49e8d%2F531f21033fdc4c30a2bafcd67f1b1c9b
Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property

Justice Clarence Thomas reached back to the earliest days of the Constitution in his majority opinion to note that "the Bureau's funding mechanism fits comfortably with the First Congress' appropriations practice."

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Thomas' colleagues in the court's conservative bloc, dissented. "The Court upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight," Alito wrote.

The case was argued more than seven months ago, during the first week of the court's term. Lopsided decisions like Thursday's 7-2 vote typically don't take so long, but Alito's dissent was longer than the majority opinion, and two other justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote separate opinions even though they both were part of the majority.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some other business interests backed the payday lenders, mortgage bankers and other sectors regulated by the CFPB cautioned the court to avoid a broad ruling that could unsettle the markets.

In 2020, the court decided another CFPB case, ruling that Congress had improperly insulated the head of the bureau from removal. The justices said the director could be replaced by the president at will but allowed the bureau to continue to operate.


Red Box Rules

Stay on topic or risk comment removal.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1  seeder  evilone    4 weeks ago

Thomas' remarks surprised me.

Justice Clarence Thomas reached back to the earliest days of the Constitution in his majority opinion to note that "the Bureau's funding mechanism fits comfortably with the First Congress' appropriations practice."
 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  evilone @1    4 weeks ago

thomas could be a bit hyper-sensitive to public opinion now. looks like corporate america will be losing the freedom to rip off consumers...

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.1  George  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 weeks ago
thomas could be a bit hyper-sensitive to public opinion now.

Yes, a person who has a lifetime appointment that has zero chance of being removed cares about public opinion.  LOL

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  George @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
zero chance of being removed

are you sure about that?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  George @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
Yes, a person who has a lifetime appointment that has zero chance of being removed cares about public opinion.

Perhaps Thomas is foreseeing the likelihood of a democratic controlled congress, thus increasing his odds of being impeached without republicans being able to shield him.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.4  George  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

There is zero chance that the democrats will get 67 votes in the Senate.   There are more republicans than democrats in the senate now.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  George @1.1.4    4 weeks ago
There is zero chance that the democrats will get 67 votes in the Senate.

No matter the charges or the evidence???

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2  seeder  evilone    4 weeks ago

How many times has the SCOTUS overruled the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals now? 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1  George  replied to  evilone @2    4 weeks ago

The circuit with the most overturns is the 9th circuit, the highest percentage is the 6th circuit, the 5th circuit is the second highest in appeals heard but is overturned at a lower rate.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  George @2.1    4 weeks ago

original

Conservatives have been bringing cases up to a couple of favorable judges in Tx these last few years with those cases being upheld by the 5th. It got so bad that Roberts rebuked judge shopping in his reporting. Republicans didn't like it when they had less numbers of conservative judges on the benches, but now that has largely changed Republican lawmakers are actively endorsing it.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.2  George  replied to  evilone @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

And?????? look at the Ninth, liberals have been forum shopping for years to get favorable outcomes, that's why the Ninth is overturned constantly. are you mad that conservates are following their lead?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.3  seeder  evilone  replied to  George @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
look at the Ninth, liberals have been forum shopping for years

Yes. Republicans cried about how unfair that was then. I remember talking about it back then saying it would eventually bite Dems in the ass too. I'm not mad. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and the continued pressure of populist conservatives to remake the US in their twisted fever dream that more often conflicts with the Constitution than not. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.4  George  replied to  evilone @2.1.3    4 weeks ago
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and the continued pressure of populist conservatives to remake the US in their twisted fever dream that more often conflicts with the Constitution than not.

And your hypocrisy for pointing out that you think the populist conservative trying to change the US is noted. while dismissing the liberals roll in how this came about, because according to the numbers the ignorant fucktard liberals trying to shape the US to their deviant views gets overturned far more often that the conservatives populist do.

Now maybe we can put the hyperbole aside? or we can continue to insult conservative populist and liberal deviants or realize that the supreme court is there to balance both and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.5  seeder  evilone  replied to  George @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
while dismissing the liberals roll in how this came about

Slow down there cowboy... This isn't about liberals. You guys put up enough liberal hypocrisy articles to choke a moose. I don't need to. 

And your hypocrisy for pointing out that you think the populist conservative trying to change the US is noted. while dismissing the liberals roll in how this came about, because according to the numbers the ignorant fucktard liberals trying to shape the US to their deviant views gets overturned far more often that the conservatives populist do.

LOL! I'm wondering if I triggered something here since you seem to have abandoned basic grammar? At least the liberal augments were within the principals of the Constitution even if some of their ideas pushed the boundaries at times. The conservative populists just don't give a shit and they aren't making excuses about it either. They can't win within the framework so they'll burn it down from inside if they have to. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.6  George  replied to  evilone @2.1.5    4 weeks ago
At least the liberal augments were within the principals of the Constitution

That is a matter of opinion, and since the supreme court disagrees with it, it is the wrong opinion, the 5th's rulings are upheld far more than the liberal 9th. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

It's interesting  how  many Democrats project their own ignorance, cravenesses and partisanship onto Thomas. Because they and their favored justices always vote their partisan interests they assume Thomas must do the same .   They assume the possible only reason he doesn't fall in partisan line like is because he's a coward who votes in hopes of protecting himself, which is the only thing that could motivate a one of those progressives to not follow the democratic hive mind. 

Here's the thing everyone seems to understand but a large percentage of Democrats. Thomas frequently disagrees with the "conservative" justices. And It doesn't matter how many times he does. Fringe progressives  are going to attempt another high tech lynching whenever they feel they have the power to do so.  The only thing that could stop that would be a public submission where he rejects every offending vote he ever made, claims he was victimized by white conservatives and generally subjects himself to  a public humiliation like a scene out of the cultural revolution  and then does a  180 degree flip to a Sotomayor clone.  Absent bowing and scraping to progressive overlords, they'll still hate  him for being a black man who doesn't follow their rules. 

 
 

Who is online



Texan1211
CB


56 visitors