Kavanaugh had ruled the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "unconstitutional"

[BoyNextDoor]

Kavanaugh had ruled the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "unconstitutional"

You know - that agency that within its seven years of operation helped 31 million Americans recover $12.4 billion in relief funds in cases of illegal financial dealings.

This is why he is being nominated. Because any time a hardworking American gets relief from the Oligarchy they spend the $$$ to change, bend or break the rules. Or better yet, get the deplorables to vote in favor of today's digital plantation owners.

 

[OldJourno]

Is this the bureau which is led by a guy who is answerable to no one?
If that's the case, Kavanaugh made a good ruling.

 

[bellisarius]

Is this the bureau which is led by a guy who is answerable to no one?
If that's the case, Kavanaugh made a good ruling.

The "progressives" might approve of that ruling now. I mean the new head has repeatedly told the Democrats to "go fuck themselves", in much more diplomatic language though. LMAO

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Never can discuss anything on the merits. Always deflection, waddabout, ad hominem, labels, blah blah blah.

I'd much rather have immigrants that want to be here and be a part of the America that is an idea and an ideal based on reason then you deplorables who know nothing of what it means to be an American any more.

Put your ass up high in the air for your corporate masters to fuck while on earth and cower before your fear of death and the ghost you imagine that will meet you is all you seem to understand. #sad

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Never can discuss anything on the merits. Always deflection, waddabout, ad hominem, labels, blah blah blah.

I'd much rather have immigrants that want to be here and be a part of the America that is an idea and an ideal based on reason then you deplorables who know nothing of what it means to be an American any more.

Put your ass up high in the air for your corporate masters to fuck while on earth and cower before your fear of death and the ghost you imagine that will meet you is all you seem to understand. #sad

Speaking of not discussing anything on "the merits," why don't you post a link to the full text of the specific opinion you object to, post the substantive legal holdings that Judge Kavanaugh embraced and then analyze why that rationale was unsound?

THAT would be discussing the issue on the MERITS rather than just implying that he is categorically insensitive to, or opposes 31 million Americans recovering $12.4 billion in relief funds -- an implication that itself is nothing more than ad hominem.

 

[BB10]

Speaking of not discussing anything on "the merits," why don't you post a link to the full text of the specific opinion you object to, post the substantive legal holdings that Judge Kavanaugh embraced and then analyze why that rationale was unsound?

THAT would be discussing the issue on the MERITS rather than just implying that he is categorically insensitive to, or opposes 31 million Americans recovering $12.4 billion in relief funds -- an implication that itself is nothing more than ad hominem.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Here is the actual decision - PHH Corporation et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Board

Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, but the case was decided unanimously by a three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court.

It did not shut the CFPB down, rather it ordered them to restructure in a manner that is consistent with the Executive Powers (making the director at will, not for cause).

When writing the law that created it, the Democrats intended to structure it like the Fed (whose director is only removable for cause), but they failed to account for the fact that the Fed Director can be removed by the Fed Board at will.

Independent commissions created by Congress or the Executive must both have a structure, either the President or a commission or board of directors, with the power to remove at will.

That is textualism in action as judicial theory. What the law actually says matters most of all. The remedy is now back in Congresses hands, to change the law to make it constitutional.

 

[RobDownSouth]

wrong thread

 

[OldJourno]

wrong thread

Read the story in the link. Lot to like about this nominee.

 

[HAL_9000]

I still think a lifetime appointment is crazy.

And I know the reasons why. To protect against undue influence from elections or term nominations, etc.

But still, it smacks of royalty.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Here is the actual decision - PHH Corporation et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Board

Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, but the case was decided unanimously by a three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court.

It did not shut the CFPB down, rather it ordered them to restructure in a manner that is consistent with the Executive Powers (making the director at will, not for cause).

When writing the law that created it, the Democrats intended to structure it like the Fed (whose director is only removable for cause), but they failed to account for the fact that the Fed Director can be removed by the Fed Board at will.

Independent commissions created by Congress or the Executive must both have a structure, either the President or a commission or board of directors, with the power to remove at will.

That is textualism in action as judicial theory. What the law actually says matters most of all. The remedy is now back in Congresses hands, to change the law to make it constitutional.

Actually it was not the DC Circuit Court and it no longer is in the hands of Congress to "make it Constitutional." But you were a hell of a lot closer than numbnuts BND who authored the thread.

The three-judge panel lead by Kavanaugh was from the U. S. Court of Appeals FOR the D. C. circuit. Federal Courts of Appeals typically hear cases by three judge panels of their total membership. Rarely, but at times, Appeals courts will review their OWN prior ruling en banc.

That's exactly what happened in this case, and the full Court overturned the Kavanaugh lead panel by a vote of 7-3 earlier this year -- something Kavanaugh had to know was a distinct possibility at the time he wrote the earlier opinion. Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh and Judges Randolph and Henderson who made up the original panel were the three dissenting votes when the full Court published the en banc opinion.

In short, not one damned thing has happened to the structure of the CFPB, something that will likely surprise BND. It was a "nothing burger" Kavanaugh opinion that did not withstand review at the next higher judicial rung.

Here is THAT opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651686D60D585258226005405AC/$file/15-1177.pdf

Cue BND to return to tell us he knew this all along, and that he was just setting us up to illustrate the illegitimacy of Kavanaugh's judicial chops.....in 3 - 2 - 1

What he won't tell us is why there is now a bipartisan effort in Congress to structure the CFPB as a multi-member commission along the lines of the Federal Reserve and the FCC -- the very thing the Kavanaugh panel advocated and the full DC Court of Appeals said is NOT required. See: https://www.housingwire.com/articles/42756-bipartisan-push-begins-in-congress-to-change-cfpb-leadership-to-commission

Let's see....could it have anything to do with the power invested in a Republican President appointing a SINGLE agency head directly UNanswerable to a potential future Democratic president?

Gee, I dunno... You think???

 

[bellisarius]

Actually it was not the DC Circuit Court and it no longer is in the hands of Congress to "make it Constitutional." But you were a hell of a lot closer than numbnuts BND who authored the thread.

The three-judge panel lead by Kavanaugh was from the U. S. Court of Appeals FOR the D. C. circuit. Federal Courts of Appeals typically hear cases by three judge panels of their total membership. Rarely, but at times, Appeals courts will review their OWN prior ruling en banc.

That's exactly what happened in this case, and the full Court overturned the Kavanaugh lead panel by a vote of 7-3 earlier this year -- something Kavanaugh had to know was a distinct possibility at the time he wrote the earlier opinion. Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh and Judges Randolph and Henderson who made up the original panel were the three dissenting votes when the full Court published the en banc opinion.

In short, not one damned thing has happened to the structure of the CFPB, something that will likely surprise BND. It was a "nothing burger" Kavanaugh opinion that did not withstand review at the next higher judicial rung.

Here is THAT opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651686D60D585258226005405AC/$file/15-1177.pdf

Cue BND to return to tell us he knew this all along, and that he was just setting us up to illustrate the illegitimacy of Kavanaugh's judicial chops.....in 3 - 2 - 1

What he won't tell us is why there is now a bipartisan effort in Congress to structure the CFPB as a multi-member commission along the lines of the Federal Reserve and the FCC -- the very thing the Kavanaugh panel advocated and the full DC Court of Appeals said is NOT required. See: https://www.housingwire.com/articles/42756-bipartisan-push-begins-in-congress-to-change-cfpb-leadership-to-commission

Let's see....could it have anything to do with the power invested in a Republican President appointing a SINGLE agency head directly UNanswerable to a potential future Democratic president?

Gee, I dunno... You think???

Hence my prior post concerning a "progressive" change of heart.

In the crafting of the law congress put the agency outside the reach of the president, or so they thought. But they also put it outside their own ability to oversee the agency. A fact that Mulvaney has delightedly rubbed in the democrats faces at every opportunity. This has provoked to democrats to join with republicans to bring the agency in compliance with rational government and the Constitution.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I stand corrected.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Speaking of not discussing anything on "the merits," why don't you post a link to the full text of the specific opinion you object to, post the substantive legal holdings that Judge Kavanaugh embraced and then analyze why that rationale was unsound?

THAT would be discussing the issue on the MERITS rather than just implying that he is categorically insensitive to, or opposes 31 million Americans recovering $12.4 billion in relief funds -- an implication that itself is nothing more than ad hominem.

Do your own research councilor. I've done mine.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Do your own research councilor. I've done mine.

Yeah. Your legal research was about as impressive as your English usage research on the proper use of "concilor" vs "counselor."

counselor-vs-councilor-difference

https://media.giphy.com/media/DBz1VNR5mKq2c/giphy.gif

 

[HAL_9000]

I'm going to keep picking at the lifetime appointment aspect.

 

[BB10]

Bum Next Door Kicked in Cunt by Hogan!


Down goes Bum Next Door

https://media.giphy.com/media/PkHzlK1J0K2bu/giphy.gif

 

[BB10]

I'm going to keep picking at the lifetime appointment aspect.

and what other parts of teh Constitution will you pick on?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Yeah. Your legal research was about as impressive as your English usage research on the proper use of "concilor" vs "counselor."

counselor-vs-councilor-difference

https://media.giphy.com/media/DBz1VNR5mKq2c/giphy.gif

I blame how much fun I have had over the years and a distinct lack of caring about gramma and spellin on Lit.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yeah. Your legal research was about as impressive as your English usage research on the proper use of "concilor" vs "counselor."

counselor-vs-councilor-difference

https://media.giphy.com/media/DBz1VNR5mKq2c/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYSSCIrv8aUaBsQ/giphy.gif

ehhh...you might wanna walk this gotcha back, Hogey!

 

[HAL_9000]

and what other parts of teh Constitution will you pick on?

""The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.""

Source:



https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

 

[bellisarius]

""The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.""

Source:



https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

Is this some sort of new revelation to you?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I blame how much fun I have had over the years and a distinct lack of caring about gramma and spellin on Lit.

I blame your lack of caring about education and factual accuracy in general as the reason so little of it is in evidence here. To wit: "spelling" is the orderly arrangement of letters to form an actual word with a commonly understood and accepted meaning. "Grammar" is the structural form and rules of a language made up of those same words. Neither has a damn thing to do with word USAGE which simply entails correctly choosing between, say, "horse" or "hoarse" depending on whether one is describing a four-legged equine animal or inflamed pharyngeal soft tissues.

Which, not surprisingly, is why you suck so miserably at something like law. Or history. Or accurate reporting of either. So, by all means, keep having fun. You're far better at it than being profound.

 

[HAL_9000]

Is this some sort of new revelation to you?

https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13485373_f496.jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYSSCIrv8aUaBsQ/giphy.gif

ehhh...you might wanna walk this gotcha back, Hogey!

Well.....shit.

At least, unlike BND, I DO care. "Thanks,"Zum. (ya little bastard)