Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Consumer Protection Bureau’s Structure

By | October 21, 2019

  • October 21, 2019 at 12:30 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 18

    Just in case you thought Reuters didn’t have the usual liberal bias, here is the opening paragraph:

    “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge backed by President Donald Trump’s administration to the structure of a federal agency assigned to protect consumers in the financial sector that could undermine its independence from presidential interference.”

    Gee, why would a Democratic President want to interfere with “consumer protection”? They wouldn’t. The abuses of the CFPA are long, but they all are targeted at businesses.

    We elect the President. He runs the Executive Branch, all of it, including the massive bureaucracy. By making the head of the CFPA “independent”, liberals knew they could entrench liberal administration even under a Republican President and circumvent the will of the people, circumvent democracy. (It would be like making the Joint Chiefs of Staff permanent positions, once appointed by a Republican President.)

    So, yeah. There is a very valid issue here. Not the “interference” of a President you didn’t vote for. Is this Constitutional?

    • October 21, 2019 at 12:43 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 8

      Of course the CFPA is targeted at businesses. It’s the CONSUMER Financial Protection Bureau. It’s not called the BANK or LENDER Financial Protection Bureau because that’s not the intent of the bureau.

      Also, the head of the CFPA is NOT independent and IS already under the scope of the President.

      The issue here is the head of the agency (again, selected by the President) gets to run the Bureau for 5 years and can only be terminated by the President for specific reasons (inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office).

      The issue is not “the President should be able to select the CFPA head”. He does.

      The issue is not “the President should have the power to replace the CFPA head”. He does.

      The issue is “the President should be able to replace the CFPA head for any reason they want”.

      • October 21, 2019 at 1:43 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 12

        Then why is this before the Supreme Court, F. Lee Bailey?

        Because if a Democratic President made the appointment 2 months before the end of his term, after a Republic was elected, the Republican could NOT make a change during his first term, since the appointment was for 5 years.

        I swear, sometimes you just argue to argue and then your arguments look silly.

        • October 21, 2019 at 1:57 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 3

          Why is it before the Supreme Court? Come on man, I already answered that.

          The issue is “the President should be able to replace the CFPA head for any reason they want, not have the termination be subject to the limited reasons already given, and the head should not have a 5-year term limit”.

          I swear, it’s like you don’t even read the responses people give you before replying.

          • October 21, 2019 at 2:29 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 13

            And now you agree with my first comment! Confirming my second comment. Whatever, man.

          • October 21, 2019 at 3:28 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 2

            I simply repeated what I previously wrote yet you think I changed my argument? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Proves my point that I don’t think you’re even reading the responses people provide before you post again.

          • October 21, 2019 at 5:39 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 10

            Verbatim from your post: “The issue is not “the President should be able to select the CFPA head”. He does.”

            No, he does not. The prior President picks him for 5 years. If the prior President picks him in his last year in office . . .

            Damn, dude.

          • October 22, 2019 at 8:14 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 1

            Think with me for a moment…

            So I agree … if President #1 picks the head in their last year, President #2 doesn’t get to make the pick and President (#3) picks the next head in their first year.

            But what does that mean for the next cycle?

            Since President #3 picked the head in their 1st year, President #4 picks the head in their 2nd year. Then President #5 picks the next head.

            You know the common theme to that?

            THE PRESIDENT PICKS THE HEAD OF THE CFPA.

            In your scenario, ONE President doesn’t get pick the head but THREE Presidents in a row do.

            I can’t believe you said TWICE that the President doesn’t pick the head of the CFPA.

            That’s utter nonsense.

          • October 22, 2019 at 1:21 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 9

            If this, then that. Geez, I can pretend there are scenarios where this isn’t punishing too. But apparently, you can’t envision the scenario I laid out. Hmmmm.

            Why can’t you see why a 5 year term was chosen? Seriously.

            You think we should have 5 year terms for the head of the FBI? CIA? Treasury? Joint Chiefs of Staff? Department of Justice? Department of Agriculture? Education? Etc. Etc. Etc. Right now? When Trump is President and could lock in his picks beyond the next term no matter who becomes the next President. Sure, you support that. As if.

            5 years wasn’t randomly chosen. Wise up.

          • October 22, 2019 at 1:24 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            Craig: “But apparently, you can’t envision the scenario I laid out.”

            Rosenblatt’s prior post, 2nd sentence: “So I agree … if President #1 picks the head in their last year, President #2 doesn’t get to make the pick and President (#3) picks the next head in their first year.”

            Déjà vu all over again….

            I swear, it’s like you don’t even read the responses people give you before replying.

          • October 22, 2019 at 1:26 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            I did and you contradicted yourself.

            So answer this: how many cabinet members should have 5 year terms? Which ones?

            Why is the CFPB special? Let me know.

          • October 22, 2019 at 1:55 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            If you’re going to claim I contradicted myself, which I obviously don’t agree with, please cite what I said — VERBATIM — from my above posts pointing out EXACTLY how you think I did that.

          • October 22, 2019 at 9:35 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            I take it from that reply that you have nothing to support your MULTIPLE claims that I changed my argument and contradicted myself? Either prove it or admit you were wrong. If you can’t do either, I have no interest in discussing the deflections you’ve brought up since then since, again, it seems like you’re not even bothering to read my replies anyway.

          • October 22, 2019 at 9:38 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            ….aaaand your reply was deleted. Oh well. Just know I didn’t request it.

          • October 23, 2019 at 12:26 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            How many cabinet members should have protected jobs for 5 years? And why?

            Your refusal to answer directly says it all.

          • October 23, 2019 at 1:16 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Either prove that I contradicted myself like you claimed multiple times or admit you were wrong and I did no such thing. If you can’t do either, I have no interest in discussing the deflections you’ve brought up since then because it seems like you’re not even bothering to read my replies anyway.

          • October 23, 2019 at 3:08 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 5

            Here goes, verbatim:

            The issue is not “the President should have the power to replace the CFPA head”. He does.

            The issue is “the President should be able to replace the CFPA head for any reason they want”.

            So if he can’t replace him for any reason, then he does NOT have the power to replace him does he? His power is by your own definition, limited. He can only replace him under the terms written by Elizabeth Warren and Obama. (And they wouldn’t have any motives to limit the future President’s power, would they?)

            Now man up and answer my question.

          • October 23, 2019 at 6:57 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            If we’re demanding people “man up” how about you acknowledge one time the multiple lies and disinformation campaigns on this board you’ve taken part in, Craig? Ever going to MAN UP and admit you lied about your “quotes” regarding psychosis and marijuana? How about your lies about air conditioning being the leader in CO2 emissions? Your lies about 26/27 of the last mass murderers being fatherless? Any of those? I’ve got more, we can keep going, which would you like to MAN UP to first? :)

          • October 24, 2019 at 10:55 am
            flawedlogic says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            He needs to be one before he can man up in the first place. He hasn’t proven anything, especially his own honesty.

            He has been wrong almost on a daily basis, but never admits it he just switches the topic and shifts goals.

  • October 21, 2019 at 4:23 pm
    MadDog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 3

    Cornell says: “Because if a Democratic President made the appointment 2 months before the end of his term, after a Republic was elected, the Republican could NOT make a change during his first term, since the appointment was for 5 years.”

    Using your own statement, can you say Neil Gorsuch?

    • October 21, 2019 at 5:41 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 10

      Mumbled thinking. The Supreme Court appointment is permanent under the Constitution in order to try to make it consistent and free from politics.

      The CFPB is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, which reports to the President.

      P.S. Had Harry Reid not eliminated the filibuster for Circuit Court judges, the Republicans would not have followed suit for the Supreme Court confirmations. How’s that working for you?

  • October 21, 2019 at 4:26 pm
    MadDog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 3

    Sorry, I meant Merrick Garland.

    • October 21, 2019 at 5:45 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 11

      Correct. Merrick Garland should have been given a vote under normal historical precedents.

      However, my point above applies. Mitch McConnell saw Harry Reid eliminate the filibuster for Circuit Court judges and knew Reid would do the same for the Supreme Court once another Democrat was elected while the Dems. controlled the Senate.

      He didn’t want to wait for that outcome. Shrewd and for fair-minded people, completely understandable. Why give the Dems. Garland if the game was about to be rigged going forward anyway?

      • October 22, 2019 at 11:10 am
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 4

        Didn’t you just use the line “Mumbled thinking”? Your justifications seem to be lacking any logical justification.

        • October 22, 2019 at 1:24 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 9

          “Gaa Gaa Goo Goo.” The typical Jon post. Lacking any point, any thinking. The kind of post Andrew loves.

          • October 23, 2019 at 11:19 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            If by typical Jon post you mean points out the fallacies and hypocrisies in your posts, I’d agree.

          • October 24, 2019 at 10:44 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            OCTOBER 18, 2019 AT 2:15 PM
            Andrew G. Simpson says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            2
            0
            Here it is one more more time for y’all. Comments, no matter how otherwise valid, will be deleted if they contain personal insults and/or are off-topic. These insults might include liar, Basement Boy, puffy chested (whatever that is), Kangaroo, idiot, pervert, slow learner, Lefty, crazy, mentally ill, fool, pathetic, old man, etc. And if your comment only exists to address, criticize or belittle another commenter or person as opposed to addressing the issues or articles, it will be deleted.

          • October 24, 2019 at 7:48 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            Your justifications seem to be lacking any logical justification.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*