Another Legal Triumph Over The Deep State And Pocahontas

[Rightguide]

Appeals court clears way for deep cuts, restructuring at CFPB​

In a 2-1 decision, Trump appointees ruled that the alleged sweeping directive to close the agency couldn't be reviewed by the courts.

A security officer works inside of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau building headquarters Feb. 10, 2025, in Washington. | Jacquelyn Martin/AP
By Kyle Cheney and Michael Stratford08/15/2025 12:13 PM EDT

A federal appeals court panel has cleared the way for the Trump administration to largely dismantle the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, lifting a lower-court judge’s injunction that had preserved the agency’s structure — and barred mass layoffs — for months.
The 2-1 ruling, authored by Judge Gregory Katsas, said a series of legal defects in the lawsuit brought by CFPB employees and the NAACP doomed the case and required the district court judge’s blockade to be lifted.

Katsas, a Trump appointee, said the fatal flaw was the broad challenge against what the employees described as a master plan to shutter the agency altogether. While individual layoffs or contract terminations may be challenged in court, Katsas wrote that the sweeping directive to close the agency — alleged in the lawsuit — was not something the courts could review, particularly because it was unclear that the administration had made a final decision to carry out the closure.


“The plaintiffs seek to set aside an abstract decision, inferred from a constellation of discrete actions, to prophylactically ensure that the Bureau can fulfill its statutory mandate,” Katsas wrote. “If the plaintiffs’ theory were viable, it would become the task of the judiciary, rather than the Executive Branch, to determine what resources an agency needs to perform its broad statutory functions.”

What's this the 17th or 18th straight court victory for the President?

 

[DeluxAuto]

What's this the 17th or 18th straight court victory for the President?

You consider an attack on the American consumer a victory.

You get dumber by the day.

 

[ll74]

The CFPB was created with a bipartisan 60-39 vote in the Senate.

 

[Rebel5soul]

You consider an attack on the American consumer a victory.

You get dumber by the day.

STFU moron.

The stupid bastards keep filing these junk, an inappropriate, suits. As quickly as the court of appeals is smacking them down you'd think they'd get the message. Makes you wonder what Cracker Jack box these lawyers got their degree out of.

 

[DeluxAuto]

STFU moron.

The stupid bastards keep filing these junk, an inappropriate, suits. As quickly as the court of appeals is smacking them down you'd think they'd get the message. Makes you wonder what Cracker Jack box these lawyers got their degree out of.

They're patriots who are standing up to fascism, shit for brains. Go fuck off to a dictatorship. This is the United States.

 

[HisArpy]

STFU moron.

The stupid bastards keep filing these junk, an inappropriate, suits. As quickly as the court of appeals is smacking them down you'd think they'd get the message. Makes you wonder what Cracker Jack box these lawyers got their degree out of.

The Left never intended to win these suits, they file them for the harassment and interference with the Trump administration value.

Anything they can do to slow down the dismantling of their brave new political order is ok with them. What they're finding out is that it's not working, wasn't ever going to actually work, and is exposing them for the scum sucking swamp weasels they really are.

 

[Rightguide]

The CFPB was created with a bipartisan 60-39 vote in the Senate.

It was Warren's baby.

 

[Rightguide]

You consider an attack on the American consumer a victory.

You get dumber by the day.

You dumb clown, the CFPB is an attack on the American consumer.

 

[Rebel5soul]

It was Warren's baby.

And over the years they expanded FAR beyond their congressionally mandated charter. Trump is cutting them back to the bare minimum required by law.

 

[ll74]

It was Warren's baby.

Bipartisan

 

[Rightguide]

The Left never intended to win these suits, they file them for the harassment and interference with the Trump administration value.

Anything they can do to slow down the dismantling of their brave new political order is ok with them. What they're finding out is that it's not working, wasn't ever going to actually work, and is exposing them for the scum sucking swamp weasels they really are.

A concerted conspiracy of lawfare.

 

[HisArpy]

A concerted conspiracy of lawfare.

The problem isn't the lawfare, it's that neither the courts nor the DOJ are doing anything to prevent it by taking the lawyers involved to task.

For example; some dolt just sued the Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to provide contraceptives. Rather than tossing the suit and punishing the dolt, the court moved forward with the suit and found against the Defense.

Meanwhile, there's precedent in a SCOTUS opinion which invalidates not only the court's decision but makes the filing of the suit frivolous and lacking in any merit.

 

[Rightguide]

The problem isn't the lawfare, it's that neither the courts nor the DOJ are doing anything to prevent it by taking the lawyers involved to task.

For example; some dolt just sued the Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to provide contraceptives. Rather than tossing the suit and punishing the dolt, the court moved forward with the suit and found against the Defense.

Meanwhile, there's precedent in a SCOTUS opinion which invalidates not only the court's decision but makes the filing of the suit frivolous and lacking in any merit.

It seems to me the courts are complicit in being a vehicle for what is clearly a misuse of the law or lawfare to achieve a political end. I think Congress might have to create stronger regulatory controls over the inferior Federal District Courts that limit both jurisdiction and the rules of procedure.

 

[Rebel5soul]

It seems to me the courts are complicit in being a vehicle for what is clearly a misuse of the law or lawfare to achieve a political end. I think Congress might have to create stronger regulatory controls over the inferior Federal District Courts that limit both jurisdiction and the rules of procedure.

It's the judges. Impeach a few of them and the rest will probably settle down. Start with Boasberg.

 

[Rightguide]

It's the judges. Impeach a few of them and the rest will probably settle down. Start with Boasberg.

Impeachment is, in a lot of cases, a bridge too far in the United States Senate. Congress has the constitutional authority to define "good behavior" and prescribe remedies. They can also state that no Executive Branch defendant need respect any federal court order for a TRO that, on its face, violates "any of the strictures" of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You dumb clown, the CFPB is an attack on the American consumer.

How so? Please detail your position.

 

[Rightguide]

How so? Please detail your position.

The CFPB’s original mission, to shield consumers from fraud and abuse, has, in many cases, morphed into centralized regulatory control that limits consumer choice, drives up costs, and removes legitimate financial tools from the market. The “protector” has, for some, become a gatekeeper that decides which legal financial options the public is allowed to have.

For instance, reports and investigations have shown that the CFPB has pressured banks to monitor and, in some cases, restrict transactions related to firearms purchases. While framed as risk management or compliance, this effectively allows a government agency to influence banks to punish lawful behavior, something that directly impacts consumers’ freedoms. What is coming for the CFPB is long overdue.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The CFPB’s original mission, to shield consumers from fraud and abuse, has, in many cases, morphed into centralized regulatory control that limits consumer choice, drives up costs, and removes legitimate financial tools from the market. The “protector” has, for some, become a gatekeeper that decides which legal financial options the public is allowed to have.

For instance, reports and investigations have shown that the CFPB has pressured banks to monitor and, in some cases, restrict transactions related to firearms purchases. While framed as risk management or compliance, this effectively allows a government agency to influence banks to punish lawful behavior, something that directly impacts consumers’ freedoms. What is coming for the CFPB is long overdue.

I didn't ask for a MAGAt AI response, Jack.