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

[BoyNextDoor]

These facts still remain: 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.

If you are not part of the 0.01% why on earth would you not want consumer financial protection?

Answer: (1) Because you are a paid shill of the 0.01% (2) you are ignorant of the facts

Are you a part of the 0.01% or ignorant of the facts?

Or do you have another answer?

 

[OldJourno]

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

I don't know what happened to Rob's original post, but the link was indeed very relevant to the discussion in this thread.
Can we have it back?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

These facts still remain: 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.

If you are not part of the 0.01% why on earth would you not want consumer financial protection?

Answer: (1) Because you are a paid shill of the 0.01% (2) you are ignorant of the facts

Are you a part of the 0.01% or ignorant of the facts?

Or do you have another answer?

What the fuck is it with you? "Why on earth" do you think the man is opposed to consumer financial protection? What opinions has he written that makes you think he is trying to kill the CFPB? And even the one you cited merely called for a multi-member ruling body rather than a single administrative director -- nowhere did it talk about an unconstitutional AGENCY or function. AND EVEN THAT earlier opinion got shot down 7-3 by the whole appellate court on which he sat!!

The CFPB isn't going anywhere. There is nothing to indicate for one moment that other conservative Supreme Court justices are licking their chops to get at it or that there is a glaring legal issue that makes its very existence vulnerable. This is a non-issue.

If you have to wring your hands over something why don't you go down the hall where all the other snifflers are prematurely mourning the demise of Roe v. Wade. That's not going anywhere either, but at least the mindless paranoia has a tad more credibility than this nonsense you're going on about.

 

[OldJourno]

These facts still remain: 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.

If you are not part of the 0.01% why on earth would you not want consumer financial protection?

Answer: (1) Because you are a paid shill of the 0.01% (2) you are ignorant of the facts

Are you a part of the 0.01% or ignorant of the facts?

Or do you have another answer?

Maybe you need to start paying attention to the fact the 0.01% ate at Obama's table. The 0.01% hate Trump and think you are an idiot who needs cradle to grave coddling.

 

[IG_88]

The thread starter has a bit of a history with bullshit like this. Say something that isn't true and then walk away and pretend it never happened.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I just hope Hogan tells us about the Federal Circuit next!

 

[RobDownSouth]

The CFPB isn't going anywhere. There is nothing to indicate for one moment that other conservative Supreme Court justices are licking their chops to get at it or that there is a glaring legal issue that makes its very existence vulnerable. This is a non-issue.

Quoting for posterity.

Let's revisit this prediction a couple of years down the line.

 

[SpeareChucker]

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???

This is comedy-fucking gold...
It's not enough to call an idiot out, but to castigate him too?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Quoting for posterity.

Let's revisit this prediction a couple of years down the line.

If the CFPB disappears it will be at the hands of Congress which created it. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about consumer financial protection that would subject it to legal prohibition by the Supreme Court.

Nor does a commission structure along the lines of the Fed or FCC directly threaten the bureau's mission or the performance of it. Having said that, it is certainly, like anything else in Washington, subject to being the political football de jour of any administration that would like to kick it around.

 

[Rightguide]

If the CFPB disappears it will be at the hands of Congress which created it. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about consumer financial protection that would subject it to legal prohibition by the Supreme Court.

Nor does a commission structure along the lines of the Fed or FCC directly threaten the bureau's mission or the performance of it. Having said that, it is certainly, like anything else in Washington, subject to being the political football de jour of any administration that would like to kick it around.

The question for me is, is the CFPB the equivalent of a fourth branch of government? If it is part of the executive branch it should be subject to presidential authority and congressional oversight. I've read where the CFPB is immune to both and therefore exists under questionable constitutional authority.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

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

Of course it illustrates that he fails the test to be a Supreme based on his past decisions. That is the whole point. His judgement in that case was found to be so flawed, such a departure for established precedent and so contrary to reality that the full Court of Appeals concluded:

Wide margins separate the validity of an independent CFPB from any unconstitutional effort to attenuate presidential control over core executive functions. The threat PHH’s challenge poses to the established validity of other independent agencies, meanwhile, is very real. PHH seeks no mere course correction; its theory, uncabined by any principled distinction between this case and Supreme Court precedent sustaining independent agencies, leads much further afield. Ultimately, PHH makes no secret of its wholesale attack on independent agencies—whether collectively or individually led—that, if accepted, would broadly transform modern government.

Because we see no constitutional defect in Congress’s choice to bestow on the CFPB Director protection against removal except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” we sustain it.

PHH was directing mortgage to other companies to get kickbacks. A violation of the law. They could not win their case on the law so they came up with the absurd position challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB. Kavanaugh supported this absurdity in an act of judicial activism that should have the so-called conservatives up in arms were they true to their espoused beliefs. RightGuide is on some other thread calling this mico-legislator activity (or some such thing).

This or some case like it is going to find its way to the SCOUTS and this guy should not be one of the 9 as he has already shown himself to be incapable of showing good judgement.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The question for me is, is the CFPB the equivalent of a fourth branch of government? If it is part of the executive branch it should be subject to presidential authority and congressional oversight. I've read where the CFPB is immune to both and therefore exists under questionable constitutional authority.

It's a silly question, and the answer is, "Indisputably NO!"

1. It is merely one of over two dozen such agencies. Take a look at the following list and try to tell me that the CFPB is more a "fourth branch of government" than some with the reach and sweeping impact of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

2. Congress is currently considering a bipartisan bill that would impose a multi-member commission to lead the agency rather than a single director. If the CFPB is "immune" to Congressional oversight, why would Congress be wasting its time on such proposed legislation?

3. It's only in the business of consumer financial protection. That's it. That makes you nervous? See item 1 again.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Of course it illustrates that he fails the test to be a Supreme based on his past decisions. That is the whole point. His judgement in that case was found to be so flawed, such a departure for established precedent and so contrary to reality that the full Court of Appeals concluded:

Wide margins separate the validity of an independent CFPB from any unconstitutional effort to attenuate presidential control over core executive functions. The threat PHH’s challenge poses to the established validity of other independent agencies, meanwhile, is very real. PHH seeks no mere course correction; its theory, uncabined by any principled distinction between this case and Supreme Court precedent sustaining independent agencies, leads much further afield. Ultimately, PHH makes no secret of its wholesale attack on independent agencies—whether collectively or individually led—that, if accepted, would broadly transform modern government.

Because we see no constitutional defect in Congress’s choice to bestow on the CFPB Director protection against removal except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” we sustain it.

PHH was directing mortgage to other companies to get kickbacks. A violation of the law. They could not win their case on the law so they came up with the absurd position challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB. Kavanaugh supported this absurdity in an act of judicial activism that should have the so-called conservatives up in arms were they true to their espoused beliefs. RightGuide is on some other thread calling this mico-legislator activity (or some such thing).

This or some case like it is going to find its way to the SCOUTS and this guy should not be one of the 9 as he has already shown himself to be incapable of showing good judgement.

You know, when you finally drink the water I directly lead you to, it wouldn't hurt you to thank me.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You know, when you finally drink the water I directly lead you to, it wouldn't hurt you to thank me.

Bullshit - he is opposed to consumer financial protection - which is the statement you got on your high horse over. His willingness to make a flawed constitutional argument, or more precisely find in favor of a flaw constitutional argument when presented to him, is the evidence of it.

The fucking dope also favors a constitutional argument against Net-Neutrality on some convoluted First Amendment basis. Another judgement he rendered for which he was roundly roasted.

And so to conclude: 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. In this case in the form of a judge who has no judgement when it comes to protecting the Oligarghy - they just get his support of whatever flimsy constitutional argument they present.

 

[sircumvent]

https://twitter.com/hashtag/BrettKavanaughScandals

 

[Colonel Hogan]

https://twitter.com/hashtag/BrettKavanaughScandals

Awesome.