SCOTUS To Hear Challenge To Liz Warren’s Brainchild

Daily Caller

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear a constitutional challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a watchdog agency whose existence is largely credited to Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

The bureau is arranged to insulate its employees and funding streams from political pressure and ensure its independence from big banks and financial institutions. At issue in Friday’s dispute is a provision forbidding the president from removing the bureau’s director except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Though the Department of Justice (DOJ) generally defends federal laws as a matter of course, the Trump administration told the justices that for-cause removal restriction on the president’s power violates the constitutional separation of powers.

“Vesting such power in a single person not answerable to the president represents a stark departure from the Constitution’s framework,” the Trump administration told the justices in court filings. More

10 Comments on SCOTUS To Hear Challenge To Liz Warren’s Brainchild

  1. The CFPD was.a Democrat slush fund. If they didn’t collect a fine from the targeted business, they negotiated (extorted) a large monetary settlement in lieu of a fine, and directed the payment to Progressive NGOs.

    Trump has the records of the corruption and Warren is toast in f she wins the Democrat nomination:

  2. …just kind of a style call-out…”Brain” and “Democrat” should be regarded as oxymoronic and NEVER used in the same sentence together; and “child” and “Democrat” usually have the well-earned connotation of infanticide, abuse, pedophilia, or all three; and so other contexts for these words juxtaposed together may be confusing to most readers.

    …because of this, saying “Brainchild” in the context of a Democrat would seem DOUBLY inappropriate, perhaps consider a different pairing such as brainFART or an altogether different phrasing such as “psychotic imaginings”, as this would be more inline with known facts and behaviors of modern Democrats…

  3. ^^^just a joke, BTW…Dr. Tar is an excellent author, and certainly doesn’t need any ACTUAL advice from ME…

  4. I believe another big concern was raised by Mulvaney when he was appointed by POTUS Trump to serve as the Director of the CBFB (remember the then-Assistant Director Leandra English sued over Mulvaney’s appointment), was that the autonomy of the CBFP prevented fiscal accountability to the Executive and the Legislative branches, and Judicial by default. I haven’t heard anything about this since, but there was the concern about the fines CBFP had levied since its inception and a fully transparent financial accounting of the bureau. Apparently, the CBFP, like the situation at HUD in 2017, was a rat’s nest of bookkeeping.

    I’ve always wondered how the structure of the CBFP compared to FDR’s National Recovery Administration. The SCOTUS, in 1935, found the NRA to be unconstitutional based on the same kind of problem. It seems very strange to me that our federal legislature should have to write more laws to make something illegal when the subject of their acts were illegal to begin with. Anyone want to help my understanding, just jump right in.

  5. uSiNg ThE pOwEr oF HiS oFfIcE tO tArGeT a PoLiTiCaL oPpOnEnT WoOp-WoOp uSiNg ThE pOwEr oF HiS oFfIcE tO tArGeT a PoLiTiCaL oPpOnEnT WoOp-WoOp uSiNg ThE pOwEr oF HiS oFfIcE tO tArGeT a PoLiTiCaL oPpOnEnT WoOp-WoOp

  6. @Thirdtwin — Well, he’s going to have to go up against Gorsuch’s 80-page opinion on the illegality of it. Kagan and Sotomayor may end up looking brilliant if Roberts tries to flim flam his way through.

  7. @Thirdtwin October 19, 2019 at 2:51 pm

    > John Roberts is going to f–k this up, isn’t he?

    Depends on whether he chooses to vacation at any lodges with pillows, before the charade starts.


Comments are closed.