SCOTUS approves CFPB funding
-
I remember when I first heard this case I thought for sure it would be declared unconstitutional.
Then I heard oral arguments and thought otherwise.
This one went 7-2. Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion.
Liz must be pleased. Her plan to minimize congressional oversight of the agency has mostly worked.
They’ll end up, after a lot of drama, with the same formula they use every time they have a trifecta: take away health care and food assistance from low income families and use the money to fund tax cuts for their donors.
-
On this one and many others, I feel Congress has abdicated it's role in government.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS approves CFPB funding:
On this one and many others, I feel Congress has abdicated its role in government.
I think that’s simply true in general. For the most part they have happily given up their power to the executive branch and, to a lesser extent, the judicial.
-
- I think all bills should be stand-alone bills.
- I think Congress should be mandated to meet only six months per year. The other six months must be spent in their districts, raising money, etc. What I don't want, is Congress anywhere near D.C.
- I think continuing resolutions for spending should be banned.
- I think all bills should have a minimum of ten days between submission for a floor vote and the actual vote, except for a Declaration of War.
-
I remember when I first heard this case I thought for sure it would be declared unconstitutional.
Then I heard oral arguments and thought otherwise.
This one went 7-2. Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion.
Liz must be pleased. Her plan to minimize congressional oversight of the agency has mostly worked.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS approves CFPB funding:
This one went 7-2. Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion.
Which The Hill chose not to mention until the 6th paragraph,
Gorsuch, Alito break from conservativesTwo of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices broke away from other right-leaning members of the nation’s high court in a decision to preserve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — but a third led the majority opinion that sided with the Biden administration.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court’s 7-2 vote upholding the agency’s funding mechanism as constitutional, suggesting that the decision undercuts the most “complete and effectual weapon” at Congress’s disposal: its power of the purse.
“Unfortunately, today’s decision turns the Appropriations Clause into a minor vestige,” Alito wrote. “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.”
Unlike most other federal agencies, which receive funding through annual appropriations, Congress gave the CFPB the power to draw funds from the Federal Reserve System that its director has deemed “reasonably necessary to carry out.” That funding mechanism has long made the CFPB a target of Republican attacks purporting lawmakers have too little control over the agency.
“The Framers would be shocked, even horrified, by this scheme,” Alito wrote.
A separate and also notable break among the justices is that the majority opinion, which sided with the Biden administration, was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, known as one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and the high court’s three liberals.
