Supreme Court Rules Law Creating Director of CFPB Unconstitutional – Severs Removal Clause, Retains Agency…

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) was originally created by congress (Elizabeth Warren lead) as a quasi-constitutional watchdog agency to reach into the banking and financial system, under the guise of oversight, and extract money by fining entities for CFPB defined regulatory and/or compliance violations.

Essentially, the CFPB is a congressionally authorized far-left extortion scheme in the banking sector.  The CFPB levies fines; the fines generate income; however, unlike traditional fines that go to the U.S. treasury, the CFBP fines are then redistributed to left-wing organizations to help fund their political activism.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren as an outcome of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Within the CFPB Warren tried to set up the head of the agency, the Director, in a manner that that he/she would operate without oversight. Unfortunately, her dictatorial-fiat-design collapsed when challenged in court.  Backstory #1Backstory #2

A federal court found the CFPB Director position held too much power and deemed it unconstitutional. The court decision noted that giving the President power to fire the Director would fix the constitutional problem.  This issue was argued extensively after President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as interim Director.  Elizabeth Warren declaring the CFPB Director could not be fired by the executive.  The legal battle worked its way to the Supreme Court.

♦ Today the Supreme Court ruled (full pdf here) the structure of the CFPB Director position is unconstitutional and the President can fire the head of the agency.  However, SCOTUS kept the CFPB agency in place by severing the part of the law that created the agency head from the rest of the law.

The CFPB remains as a quasi-constitutional agency; the CFPB remains an extortion racket to target any organization within the banking and finance sector; however, the president can fire and appoint the Director of the CFPB.

The decision could have significant implications for the future of the similarly structured Federal Housing Finance Agency, the overseer of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. like the head of the CFPB, the FHFA director is appointed to a five-year term and can only be removed for cause. ~ Politico

.

BACKSTORY:  When Senator Elizabeth Warren and crew set up the Director of the CFPB, in the aftermath of the Dodd-Frank Act, they made it so that the appointed director can only be fired for cause by the President.

This design was so the Director could operate outside the control of congress and outside the control of the White House.  In essence the CFPB director position was created to work above the reach of any oversight; almost like a tenured position no-one could ever remove.

The position was intentionally put together so that he/she would be untouchable, and the ideologue occupying the position would work on the goals of the CFPB without any oversight.

Elizabeth Warren herself wanted to be the appointed director; however, the reality of her never passing senate confirmation made her drop out.

The CFPB Director has the power to regulate pensions, retirement investment, mortgages, bank loans, credit cards and essentially every aspect of all consumer financial transactions.

However, in response to legal challenges by Credit Unions and Mortgage providers, in October 2016 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that placing so much power in a single Czar or Commissioner was unconstitutional:

[…]  The five-year-old agency violates the Constitution’s separation of powers because too much power is in the hands of its director, found the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Giving the president the power to get rid of the CFPB’s director and to oversee the agency would fix the situation, the court said. (more)

After the November 8, 2016, election (during the lame-duck Obama period), the CFPB sought an en banc review of the decision by the circuit court panel.  However, in March 2017 the Trump administration reversed the government’s position.

Today the Supreme Court finally settled the issue.

This entry was posted in Bailouts, Big Government, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Economy, Legislation, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Supreme Court Rules Law Creating Director of CFPB Unconstitutional – Severs Removal Clause, Retains Agency…

  1. Mark L. says:

    Good

    Liked by 14 people

    • Debra says:

      Except this agency has been supplanted by BLM. Corporations are being ‘fined’ (voluntarily for the most part) for their racial policies and the proceeds are being funneled to the DNC.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Friskycat says:

        This whole agency should be gone!

        Liked by 15 people

        • Maquis says:

          Agreed. Not Good Enough.

          Liked by 4 people

        • Mike in a Truck says:

          I would like the Senate to inquire about Roberts affiliation if any with John Of God. Where did his kids come from? Wheres the birth mother(s)? Still alive?

          Liked by 7 people

          • wondering999 says:

            Whoah. Went looking for this connection. Conflicted feelings because I have sympathy for people who try to adopt… but I also have more than sympathy for young women who are fertile and who, apparently, were used in a profitable, well-connected Brazilian baby farm. “https ://nypost. com/2019/01/31/john-of-god-cult-leader-allegedly-ran-child-sex-slave-farm/

            “Sabrina Bittencourt, 38, died at her home in Barcelona just days after accusing John of God – real name Joao Teixeira de Faria – of running a ‘sex slave farm’.”

            Free Republic has a long post, filled with links, including the NY Post link above, and one from Heavy.com that repeats the information that the Roberts children were born in Ireland, but adopted in “Latin America”. That’s obfuscation. Ireland is a country, Latin America is NOT a country, but an area. Why the lack of specificity? Were Roberts’ children actually adopted from Brazil, where “John of God” was producing babies for sale?

            https://heavy.com/news/2017/01/jack-josie-roberts-john-roberts-children-family-adopted-inauguration-supreme-court-chief-justice-jane-ages/

            Liked by 5 people

            • wondering999 says:

              Sorry. I screwed up with the italics, should have just had italics for the quotes

              Liked by 1 person

            • wondering999 says:

              OK Here’s a working NY Post link. Nasty, nasty story. And this faith-healer man had a lot of celebrity friends from around the world … including the Clintons, and Oprah Winfrey. I don’t blame people for being curious… I was curious about the guy, himself, because faith healing is interesting. But “farming” babies is beyond criminal
              https://nypost.com/2019/01/31/john-of-god-cult-leader-allegedly-ran-child-sex-slave-farm/

              “Brazilian activist Sabrina Bittencourt has now sensationally claimed the celebrity medium ran a baby trafficking operation, in which children were “farmed” in Brazil before being sold to childless couples around the world….She claimed young girls were held captive in remote farms, where they were forced to produce babies. She added that the women were murdered after 10 years of giving birth.”

              Liked by 1 person

          • wondering999 says:

            Not able to pull up the NY Post link, but here is one from a disreputable newspaper from UK, the Sun:
            https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8318483/john-god-cult-leader-sex-slave-farm-sold-babies/

            Liked by 1 person

          • wondering999 says:

            This is random, but I saw a video on television of “John of God” the Brazilian faith healer, decades ago.

            “John of God” would stick a [forceps?] up the noses of his “clients”, the people who come to be healed. When I saw a diagram of people being tested for Covid with the long long swabs, that’s exactly what came to my mind — the “John of God” unusual “healing technique” that is supposed to stimulate the pituaitary gland.
            http://homepage.smc.edu/martin_ben/Resources/john_of_god_scam.htm

            Liked by 1 person

            • MelH says:

              WOW!!!!!!!Treepers are loyal, forgiving, sensitive, rational, educated, all for fairness and equal application of the law. So this is painful news, of a sort, but an Ah! Ha! moment for sure.

              Liked by 2 people

          • wlbeattie says:

            Irish children illegally adopted via South America – or so I heard from an Irish “internet” friend!

            Liked by 2 people

        • Pale rider says:

          What the government….agency?
          Dig up the careers and background of our senators and representatives. All criminals or criminal want a beees.
          We are coming to the place Democrat’s and Republicans have always wanted to be, a choice of what Marxist gets in power.

          Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      It’s good only as long as we have a President like President Trump, who actively seeks to reduce federal bureaucratic power.

      If and when DemonRAT gets in the oval office, the CFPB’s director will be again be changed to an autocrat and their power will most be dramatically expanded to do harm to every one who doesn’t kneel to Leftwing orthodoxy.

      Liked by 20 people

      • grandmotherpatriot says:

        As terrible as this sounds … I am hoping that when President Trump wins in 2020 we will have another SC spot to fill !

        Liked by 14 people

        • Ozark says:

          Would like to see Roberts gone.

          Liked by 18 people

          • truthseeker39525 says:

            I have not been following this closely, but it seems like our more recently appointed ‘conservative’ judges have been taking turns siding with the Leftists, so as to have the Leftists win on a string of cases, without any of the ‘conservatives’ taking all the blame.
            Anyone watching closely, is this what is happening?

            Liked by 6 people

          • grandmotherpatriot says:

            Me too ~

            Liked by 2 people

            • stripmallgrackle says:

              Sometimes SCOTUS may see potential Constitutional issues that could develop given an opinion that isn’t purely conservative, and they are supposed to be the finest arbiters of Constitutional Law our system of justice can provide (I know, cough cough, but when was the last time either of those two wrote the opinion?). Other than a few very sketchy opinions, beginning with the hastily re-written flip-flop on Obamacare by Roberts, I have to trust that, given the influence of “precedent” on rulings over the last several decades, SCOTUS is doing the best that it can. Otherwise, why would democrats be salivating at the chance to dedicate the next democrat White House to packing the Court? The Court is fairly young today, Ginsberg being the extreme outlier.

              Reminder: If I recall, Justice Thomas is currently preparing for a raft of “precedent’ busting cases that are weaving their way towards SCOTUS.

              If we’ve lost SCOTUS, we’ve lost America. I can’t contemplate that possibility yet.

              Liked by 5 people

          • mikeyboo says:

            I agree except I would like to see Roberts (and Sotomayor) not merely gone but GONE.

            Liked by 5 people

          • cthusername says:

            He needs to go hunting with Dick Cheney.

            Liked by 2 people

        • I’m actually hoping that Trump gets 3 more vacancies to fill … RBG, Roberts, and strategically, it might be good to find a solid replacement for Thomas.
          I like Thomas, a lot, but purely from a strategy standpoint, it might be better to replace him now than to risk 8 years of a Democrat who would get to replace him with another liberal.
          Thomas is 72 …. 12 years from now he would be 84 …

          Liked by 6 people

          • grandmotherpatriot says:

            Well stated !

            Liked by 1 person

          • sturmudgeon says:

            We have not done well with Gorsuch?, Kavenaugh? Where would we be fortunate enough to find another Thomas? He had to struggle, and with the struggle, gained Wisdom… don’t see much of that anywhere these days.

            Liked by 7 people

          • hawkins6 says:

            Advocating for the removal of Justice Thomas, who is arguably, the best Supreme Court Justice on the bench, is not wise. (I think he’s the best) At 72, he hopefully has a long way to go and besides the suggestion is unappreciative given his consistent and stable past and present votes and other fabulous work over the years. Justice Thomas has vigorously defended the Constitution and is a great American and Jurist.

            It’s not fair or just to suggest jettisoning a man of his caliber based on a simplistic math calculation that will never happen.

            Liked by 12 people

        • dd_sc says:

          Next president may get 3 Supreme Court nominations. In addition to Ginsburg, Breyer is 81, and I’ve read a couple articles saying Thomas (71) would like to retire.

          Liked by 2 people

        • BLAW says:

          I’m hoping that he is able to fill at least two more Supreme Court spots.

          Liked by 3 people

        • GB Bari says:

          That does not sound terrible. In fact it sounds very hopeful. And I agree!

          Liked by 2 people

      • QCM says:

        What you describe IS the issue of any government power structure.

        Thus, the importance of both a functioning justice system AND voting.

        The latter to force change, to former to ensure the forced changes can take effect without interference.

        Liked by 6 people

      • tacocat43 says:

        However, the SCOTUS ruled just now on that not being a possibility as it is unconstitutional.

        Liked by 1 person

        • GB Bari says:

          Actually I think PDJT wants to dramatically reduce the functions and role of the CFPB, whereas the DemonRATS will expand it as much as possible. SCOTUS only deemed the “untouchability” of the Director as unconstitutional.

          Liked by 2 people

      • stripmallgrackle says:

        Sounds good on paper: a consumer financial czar on the lookout for “fat-cat bankers” who steal money from poorly informed borrowers, especially those helpless minority borrowers who can’t fend for themselves. With tenure, no less, able to function without the corrupting influence of partisan oversight. And Warren, having earned her multi-cultural props by being only 99 and 2/3rds% pure Caucasian was the ideal choice.

        Other than the fact that any Senate Leader could throw a stick in DC and hit a fully corruptible, fully qualified candidate for the job, what could possibly go wrong?

        Liked by 3 people

    • tacocat43 says:

      Is it settled?

      Liked by 1 person

    • C’mon man says:

      There should be an investigation of the way the Obama administration managed to fund leftist causes with money that should have gone into Federal coffers, while bypassing the law that only Congress can allocate funds.
      Surely there are some Democrats that don’t ignore the rule of law, unlike E. W. And also the Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsome’s secret $1 billion face mask order from China. There should be oversight by State govt officials.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I guess half a loaf is better than just the crumbs or the empty wrapper.

    Liked by 9 people

    • The Demon Slick says:

      I’m getting sick and tired of all these half loaves. I want The Constitution loaf, the whole thing. This ruling just means the first lefty to make President gets a giant and terrible weapon to use against all Liberty. The enemedia will ensure that it remains useless to any conservative President.

      Liked by 16 people

  3. gunrunner03 says:

    Any fines should have been directed to the US Treasury. In fact, I don’t understand why that isn’t the law across the board.

    Liked by 19 people

  4. 28angelica28 says:

    “almost like a tenured position no-one could ever remove” and then Liawatha wanted the position herself? She couldn’t get confirmed? How’s that for poetic justice?

    Liked by 20 people

  5. grandmotherpatriot says:

    Nice early Fourth of July gift to We the People !

    Liked by 1 person

    • YeahYouRight says:

      Gift?! Roberts again bent into a pretzel to justify keeping the unconstitutional agency in tact using severability. Terrible precident.

      Liked by 18 people

      • grandmotherpatriot says:

        Do I have to always post Sarc?

        Liked by 8 people

      • grandmotherpatriot says:

        Roberts is stuck in that Pretzel position. Makes me wonder what the Left has on Roberts. But, I will admit that I like the Idea that President Trump can fire who is in control of this outrageous unconstitutional bloated goverment created by Warren who profited off the Housing Bubble Crisis as did many other Dems including Obama and the Clintons.

        Liked by 9 people

        • The American Patriot says:

          Epstein Island

          Liked by 8 people

          • hocuspocus13 says:

            a John Roberts on Epstein travel logs ❓❓❓

            Liked by 3 people

            • jrnthethird says:

              Yes, I saw the name John Roberts in the Epstein flight logs the last time I watched a video on the topic. Can’t be sure it’s him of course, but certainly could be.

              Liked by 2 people

          • grandmotherpatriot says:

            Could be ? Or was Roberts beneficiary of ACORN?
            Clinton GSE Framework Leads to the Rise of ACORN in Chicago
            “You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” – so said an April 1995 Chicago Sun Times article that directed people with very poor credit to contact to a group of “community organizers” called ACORN.

            Liked by 5 people

          • wondering999 says:

            A Free Republic commenter suggests that the Roberts children — who were born four months apart and offered through two different competing adoption agencies — were born in Ireland? but adopted in “Latin America”. This is presented as being a violation of the adoption laws of Ireland, but that never bothered me — if children are adopted by responsible people, so what.

            BUT the Freeper suggested that the children may have been adopted through Brazil, specifically…. and horrifically, through the enterprises of Joao Teixiera, otherwise known as “John of God”, who ran a “baby farm”… and is reputed to have killed the mothers of the babies. Now THAT would be outrageous, not just a minor scandal, IF IT IS TRUE.

            Now I’m wondering about the mysterious young lady who was described by Trump as “returned to her parents” after living in horrific circumstances, someplace?
            and being rescued by General Milley and US military? What was THAT all about?

            Liked by 2 people

            • wondering999 says:

              My tinfoil hat is missing /s
              But these people are such crooks, it’s difficult to imagine, at the same time irresponsible not to recognize that they transgress normal boundaries with the greatest of joy

              Liked by 3 people

  6. xbonesny says:

    Guess who Biden’s gonna pick for VP….Liawatha Lizzie Warren

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Alex Pazzo says:

    Good news. Now let’s send the fines/revenue to the NRA, anything pro-life, constitutional scholarships to hillsdale college, 4–H, charter schools, trade schools, and intense history classes in all tax-payer funded schools.
    That is all.

    Liked by 12 people

  8. Eileen McRae says:

    “…..however, unlike traditional fines that go to the U.S. treasury, the CFBP fines are then redistributed to left-wing organizations to help fund their political activism..” Why were fines given ONLY to left-wing organizations? Does that still happen today or can a Director appointed by the President now direct fines back to the Treasury?

    Liked by 10 people

  9. dufrst says:

    Another 5-4, with the Lefties in lockstep against the Constitution in favor of tyranny and Justice Roberts barely voting the right way.

    Our nation hangs like a loose tooth at the whim of Justice Roberts. We desperately need to see Trump win in 2020 or all will be lost in less than a generation with these jokers at the helm!

    Liked by 15 people

    • Raptors2020 says:

      To the Left, all wealth is properly the possession of the Government. You get to keep only what they deem your fair share. It isn’t based on fairness or equality, it’s what the Party chooses to allow you. It’s neo-feudalism. Rich leftists expect to stay rich, in any welfare state. So far, they’re right.

      The only legitimate governing party is the Democrat Party. Therefore, all wealth is properly the possession of the Democrats: that’s why the corruption of the Bidens, the Clintons etc. doesn’t trouble Democrat voters. They’re entitled to it.

      All left-wing charities funnel donations, grants etc. to the Democrat Party. It’s rightfully theirs. Money to BLM, Planned Parenthood, CFPB etc. is re-directed to the Democrat Party. The rich donors who give money to these charities know where it winds up, and they’re fine with it.

      As any libertarian could tell you, all welfare states, all big government states quickly turn deeply corrupt. It’s inevitable.

      Liked by 10 people

      • C’mon man says:

        How about Devon Archer convicted for bilking Native American tribe of $60,000,000
        but having his sentence diminished by a judge who was Hunter Biden’s college buddy.
        Devon was Hunters partner .

        Like

    • sturmudgeon says:

      “at the whim of McConnell”

      Liked by 2 people

      • MelH says:

        Lots of propaganda on the internet and begging for donations to keep McConnell in office to support the Democrats. Why did I think he is currently a Republican? Whomsoever he supports, I hope he loses and retires and takes Elaine with him.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. sammie2 says:

    Why not just abolish it?

    Liked by 6 people

    • annieoakley says:

      I wanted it abolished too. Bureaucratic Agencies are immortal.

      Liked by 6 people

    • GB Bari says:

      That issue was not before the court. The case was about whether or not the CFPB Director could be immune from any control by the President, as the original law had included.

      The CFPB was created by an act of Congress. Since SCOTUS upheld most of that law and only deemed unconstitutional the part that immunized the Director from any Executive control, that means that the CFPB agency itself can only be abolished via another act of Congress, or if another case is brought that proves the agency itself is unconstitutional and the courts agree.

      Liked by 6 people

      • hocuspocus13 says:

        CFPB

        . .so it will remain on shakedown ❓

        Liked by 1 person

        • Maquis says:

          Under President Trump, no, under the Commies? Need I say it?

          Liked by 3 people

        • GB Bari says:

          Depends upon who is the Director and his or her overarching philosophy of what the CFPB should be doing. If the President appoints a new Director I imagine that person would agree with the President’s objective to whittle down the CFPB’s role and stop the slush fund aspect while eliminating its interference in legally run businesses.

          Liked by 1 person

  11. Wengair says:

    I pray that in VSGPJDT’s 2nd term that he cuts out a few of the progressive stronghold bureaucracies and returns more power to the states so that our society can truly be a laboratory of competitive ideas.

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Last few rulings have the SC line item vetoing legislation/EO’s. In my humble layperson’s opinion, the SC rulings should be deemed unconstitutional. The SC should be ruling on the whole legislation/EO and the Court’s opinion should serve as guidance for further legislation/EO.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. clulessgrandpa says:

    Next up? Trump’s tax returns. What is the consensus on that? My vote is that they have to give the Congress and SDNY the tax returns. Anyone want to bet? 5-4 Roberts goes against Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wethal says:

      It could come down to a separation of powers decision, as well as the mootness of the need for records for an impeachment that is now over.

      The Court ruled today that the Congress could not tie the President’s hand when hiring and firing administrative officials, because that authority was within executive power.

      (Strangely, when it comes to reversing prior executive orders on DACA or orders on the census, the Court itself appears to step over the separation-of-powers line, but that’s another issue…)

      Liked by 6 people

    • The Phantom Stranger says:

      I don’t think it matters. Trump’s tax returns are going to get leaked in September. Mueller didn’t spend over $40 million not to hand them directly to the Democrats. The Left doesn’t care whether the Supreme Court declares them legal or illegal to share.

      I suspect Roberts will vote with the conservative minority this time but in practice won’t matter. I expect at least two weeks of breathless media coverage declaring Trump a bankrupt fraud that abused the system. There won’t be a hint of truth to it, but these days that doesn’t matter.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Wethal says:

    Severablity is the standard policy when reviewing a statute for unconstitutionality because of the separation of powers. The Court is supposed to defer to the legislative branch by upholding as much of the legislation that it can. A statute that falls completely because of non-severability. is rare. Such a case involves a core part of a statute without which the rest of the statute cannot function. The Court severs the unconstitutional section whenever it can.

    A more interesting case on severability is going to be the appeal from the Fifth Circuit on Obamacare because of the repeal of the individual mandate, especially since Roberts upheld that as an exercise of the taxing power (but not a tax when reviewing part of the Obamacare appeal based on the Anti-Injunction Act,, which bars a challenge to a tax law until after someone has actually paid the tax to give him standing.). (And yes, another Roberts pretzel opinion). The Obama administration claimed the individual mandate was not severable. It will be interesting to see how the supporters of Obamacare will now argue that it is, when this case reaches the Court.

    The more interesting effect of this opinion is going to be how it affects Trump’s ability to fire administrative chiefs put in place by Obama who have a fixed term in office. If Trump doesn’t need a “for cause” (remember Comey was canned for case based on Rosenstein’s memo).

    Liked by 5 people

    • OlderAndWiser says:

      I understand the philosophy there. However, what is the evidence that the acts would have passed Congress with the objectionable clauses deleted?
      The President does not have a line item veto.
      The SC should not have a line item veto. Either pass ALL the clauses, or REJECT ALL THE CLAUSES IF EVEN ONE DOES NOT PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER. This is the only way the SC can help in reining in a run away Congress.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Wethal says:

        SCOTUS’ long-standing position on severability is that the unconstitutional section is severable. The challenging party has the burden of proof to show otherwise. Same with the constitutionality of any law or section of law – the challenger has the burden of proof to show unconsitutionality.

        Liked by 1 person

    • iwasthere says:

      Disagree. None of these statutory schemes had a severabilty clause. CBFB, AIA, etc. See my long comment, somewhere below, i guess.

      Like

    • iwasthere says:

      This decision is pernicious and the prodigy (following the rewriting authority) of the Robert’s Court Obama Care Decision. SCOTUS tweaking the statutory scheme (rewriting in actuality) to “make it Constitutional” a nip here a cut there. Whereas, 40 years ago, SCOTUS would have struck down the entire statutory scheme (the National Airport Case) and had Congress do a do over. It’s pernicious (corrosive) to the separation of powers because SCOTUS is once again – MAKING LAW FROM WHOLE CLOTH while purporting to merely ‘save the statutory scheme.’ IMHO, Roberts holds this idea that Congress and politics are ‘broken’ so he needs to save the day being the level headed one in the room. Whereas, IMHO, its (politics) is not broken at all, and we need these public and loud political debates to reach public consensus, conclusion, as part of an engaged Republic and Robert’s (by tweaking and saving) is taking that debate from the Republic. He thinks he is doing good, but is doing something very bad for the Republic in the long run, under the Robert’s just tweak it doctrine. To be sure, he is lifting the heat off the DC uni-party, but we need more heat not less if we are going to – as a Republic – be able to work thru these issues. IMHO, the very greatest (present day) threat to liberty (right now) are these concocted statutory schemes wherein the power of promulgation, enforcement and adjudication are combined into a single authority. You see it in the SEC cases, this CPFB case, and Oil States (the patent office case), probably others too, and Robert’s is doing a great disservice to the Republic under his nip/tuck the Statute doctrine. Separation of powers – a right cemented – by the structural promise of the Constitution – needs right angle turns – sharp corners and sharp separations. This hybrid mess, dual jurisdiction mess, agency power mess, needs to end, and end forthwith by the reelection of Trump and some new SCOTUS appointments. Also below. GW grad, class of ’94, John Turley for crim. pro, and Con Law II. Great teacher BTW. And Prof. Park. Admin Law I and II. Where did you go to law school? Georgetown?

      Like

      • The Phantom Stranger says:

        The UniParty has decided any embattled legislation will get passed using the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has become a super-legislative body that “cleans” up whatever the Establishment can’t get through Congress without upsetting the apple cart. Neither side wanted to deal with the political fallout from federalizing gay marriage, so they handed it to the Supreme Court.

        Like

  15. Is there anywhere that lists what groups have received money from the CFPB? Looking online I can find all the companies that were fined and how much they were fined, but I don’t see what groups were given money from the CFPB.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Why do so many people assume that the ‘left’ has something on Roberts? It is much more likely that he is just revealing who he always has been.

    On my tin-foil-hat island, Roberts is one of many scattered across Washington D.C. who have merely been sleeper agents for years, even decades. Roberts was activated in 2010 during the Obamacare battle and have been consistently ruling that way ever since.

    Like

    • Robert Smith says:

      I assume this is the true Roberts. No arm-bending needed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Phantom Stranger says:

      It’s well-known his wife was always liberal. He was never a die-hard conservative in jurisprudence but Bush pushed him as a “devout” Catholic that would rule for Pro-Life causes.

      He appears to have gone completely Left over the past 12 years. I’m positive he will become more and more of a reliable left-wing vote on all major issues.

      Another disastrous choice for the Supreme Court by the Bush family.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. Bogeyfree says:

    So what about moving on to audit all the NGO’s financed via the State Department and US taxpayers?

    Remember the golden rule……….

    FOLLOW THE MONEY!

    Liked by 4 people

  18. I stated this 2 nights ago: Use the same game to remove money from groups who donate to BLM, Antifa, etc., and give it all to Judicial Watch.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. The Gipper Lives says:

    Al Capone extorted protection money from candy stores. The difference between him and Liz Warren is that he actually kept his end of the deal.

    Liked by 5 people

  20. fred5678 says:

    “an en blanc review ”

    Sundance — was this subtly intentional or Freudian?? 🙂

    Watch out for BLM — they don’t tolerate “white” reviews!! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Robert Smith says:

    Basically, the Supreme Court says – “Yeah it’s lawless, but Oh, well…

    It exists already, what do you want us to do?!”

    Liked by 1 person

  22. frogman says:

    This should of been an easy give-me 9-0 decision, the appointments clause, if the US Constitution, is simple. The president says who is in the Federal Executive Goverment with no exceptions, as previous Supreme Court rulings have always upheld. The fact that it was not 9-0 shows how bad the court is. It also shows how bad the legal community and media community are for not being outrage that it was brought to court, appealed and not .

    Liked by 3 people

  23. Publius2016 says:

    thanks alot Supreme Court…waits until the end of 45 1st Term…

    keep moving all the pieces on the board!

    Like

  24. Martin says:

    Gee, thanks, SCOTUS. Chips in cards, a photo image of every transaction being made, reporting of every transaction of a particular category. Forms to swear to, if you pay cash above a certain amount. It’s none of their damned business!

    To stop terrorism. Except for their legal terror organizations, to pay their political bills.

    And now masks, so we look like them, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. railer says:

    The Federal Reserve was created to take power away from We the People and hand it over to an unelected, unaccountable cabal of elitists. This board is another step in that direction. Our rulers aren’t happy with a bought-off federal legislature and a stultified federal bureaucracy, they don’t even trust them to give them exactly what they want, so they push for the creation of these murky mechanisms to rule us with zero oversight. It’s sad.

    Like

  26. Zy says:

    Well if POTUS gets re-elected then it’s time to funnel the money to conservative activists. Judicial Watch deserves a few million.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. iwasthere says:

    This decision is pernicious and the prodigy (following the rewriting authority) of the Robert’s Court Obama Care Decision. SCOTUS tweaking the statutory scheme (rewriting in actuality) to “make it Constitutional” a nip here a cut there. Whereas, 40 years ago, SCOTUS would have struck down the entire statutory scheme (the National Airport Case) and had Congress do a do over. It’s pernicious (corrosive) to the separation of powers because SCOTUS is once again – MAKING LAW FROM WHOLE CLOTH while purporting to merely ‘save the statutory scheme.’ IMHO, Roberts holds this idea that Congress and politics are ‘broken’ so he needs to save the day being the level headed one in the room. Whereas, IMHO, its (politics) is not broken at all, and we need these public and loud political debates to reach public consensus, conclusion, as part of an engaged Republic and Robert’s (by tweaking and saving) is taking that debate from the Republic. He thinks he is doing good, but is doing something very bad for the Republic in the long run, under the Robert’s just tweak it doctrine. To be sure, he is lifting the heat off the DC uni-party, but we need more heat not less if we are going to – as a Republic – be able to work thru these issues. IMHO, the very greatest (present day) threat to liberty (right now) are these concocted statutory schemes wherein the power of promulgation, enforcement and adjudication are combined into a single authority. You see it in the SEC cases, this CPFB case, and Oil States (the patent office case), probably others too, and Robert’s is doing a great disservice to the Republic under his nip/tuck the Statute doctrine. Separation of powers – a right cemented – by the structural promise of the Constitution – needs right angle turns – sharp corners and sharp separations. This hybrid mess, dual jurisdiction mess, agency power mess, needs to end, and end forthwith by the reelection of Trump and some new SCOTUS appointments.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Everett Miller says:

    No monetary authorization–extra-budgetary process; No meaningful Congressional nor Executive oversight; what part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL (read ILLEGAL) doesn’t the SCOTUS understand?

    Liked by 2 people

  29. republicanvet91 says:

    “Today the Supreme Court finally settled the issue.”

    This is quite shocking!

    I fully expected Roberts would also award damages to the Democrats.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Richard says:

    Any more, the banks themselves are a far-left activist organization.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Ipse Dipxit says:

    Huh, CFPB didn’t extort – or even act on – Wells Fargo while it basically stole information of millions of its customers’ over years to set up phony accounts and charge them for it – well, until a local city yokel had the stones to step up and do something. Is that because of a No Ban Nan Fan? Can’t help but wonder if Warren, Schumer and Pelosi ran interference on that – and no surprise if Ping May Mitch helped, got a little taste of that action.

    Like

  32. Eleanor Redmond says:

    I hope I live to see an honorable government in the federal admin. Impeach John Roberts !

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s