Will the conservatives on the SC do the right thing?

[berg80]

Imagine that the Supreme Court of the United States spent an entire morning debating whether penguins are the primary cause of colon cancer or whether John F. Kennedy was assassinated by aliens from the planet Venus.

That’s more or less the quality of arguments that former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco presented to the Court on Tuesday, as part of a quizzical effort to convince the justices to declare an entire federal agency unconstitutional.

The good news is that the Court appears unlikely to buy what Francisco is selling. All three of the liberal justices took turns beating up Francisco, with an exasperated Justice Sonia Sotomayor telling Francisco at one point that she is trying to understand Francisco’s argument and is at a “total loss.”

Sotomayor appeared to be joined in her frustration by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two Trump appointees who showed little patience for Francisco’s attacks on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency that Francisco is urging them to strike down. Like Sotomayor, Barrett also repeatedly pressed Francisco to explain how, exactly, his proposed interpretation of the Constitution would actually work.

By the end of the argument, even Justice Clarence Thomas — ordinarily the most conservative member of the Court — appeared fed up with Francisco’s inability to articulate a coherent argument.

The Supreme Court’s uncharacteristic moment of sanity

Justices considering a case against the CFPB seem unlikely to trigger a second Great Depression.

www.vox.com

Not that the conservatives necessarily need a coherent argument to be made in order to make an ideologically, not constitutionally, based ruling. But it appears ruling in favor of payday loan companies and the ludicrous argument their counsel is making is a bridge too far.

 

[Polishprince]

If the CFPB is unconstitutional, it should be disbanded, no?

Or do you think the Constitution isn't important?

 

[DGS49]

People who know nothing, and care nothing, about the U.S. Constitution often try to assess Supreme Court actions with the presumption that they - the Justices - are trying to form and articulate what they consider to be "good policy" on the matter in question. Sadly, for the past 60 years or so, that is exactly what the Leftist Courts were often doing.

But this view of the Court and its role is - if you will pardon the expression - stupid. The role of the USSC, as it has been defined by the Constitution and two hundred years of precedent is to determine whether the Government action in question complies with the U.S. Constitution or does not. For example, when the Court itself set out guidelines for when abortion was legal and when it was equivalent to homicide, was that decision consistent with the limitations of the Constitution itself? Manifestly, it was not, and thus that infamous decision and all of its progeny were overturned by this "Conservative" Court.

But one giant shortcoming in the Constitution and the Court's role is that there is no way for the Court to simply look at a piece of legislation or a Federal government act and declare that it is unconstitutional, when manifestly it is.

The Court can only rule on actual "cases." So imagine that Congress passes a law that creates a national healthcare system to replace the massive private healthcare system that we now have. This would be blatantly unconstitutional; Congress lacks the power to do that. But you couldn't just go to the Supreme Court and ask it to assess that massive act of Congress to decide whether it is Constitutional. There would have to be an ACTUAL CASE that arises under the new law. Someone has to be indicted for breaking the new law, they have to be convicted, and the case has to wend its way through the appeals process until it finally gets to the USSC, and then they have to agree to hear it (which is no slam dunk). Finally, after all that is done, they MIGHT actually rule on the matter. Or they could "punt," as they did with ACA.

Parenthetically, this is why essentially none of the cases challenging the 2020 Presidential election got anywhere. There was no way to get an actual defendant and an actual case that a Federal court could rule on. They were all tossed out because the party did not have "standing" or the case wasn't timely, or other administrative problems.

But anyway, this is the problem with a "case" that seeks to have an act of Congress challenged on Constitutional grounds. The very existence of the CFPB is unconstitutional. Congress has no power to create such an institution, and that institution CANNOT have the administrative and legal powers to act in the way that the Leftist Congress intended. The same, by the way, is true of the Department of Education and the EPA. But no one has yet figured out a way to create a CASE with a real aggrieved DEFENDANT, in such a way that the Supreme Court can rule on it. Just saying that it's unconstitutional is not sufficient - even if that is true. Even the Conservative Justices understand that the case is flawed, even if its main import is valid.

But I think I lost all of the Leftists a few paragraphs back. This concept is too much for them. Way too much.

 

[berg80]

If the CFPB is unconstitutional, it should be disbanded, no?

Or do you think the Constitution isn't important?

If funding the CFPB is unconstitutional then so is funding the Fed, the FDIC, and virtually every other financial regulatory body of the US government. Ordinarily, that would be a compelling argument against shutting the CFPB down but I realize one of the goals of Trumpery is to dismantle the government piece by piece so you may find the ensuing chaos if the SC does the wrong thing quite an attractive prospect.

As the banking industry warned in a brief to the justices, striking down the CFPB would mean striking down the agency that writes the rules telling them how to comply with federal laws governing mortgages. Without these rules in place, the entire US mortgage market could seize up — taking out about 17 percent of the US economy in the process.

 

[berg80]

For example, when the Court itself set out guidelines for when abortion was legal and when it was equivalent to homicide, was that decision consistent with the limitations of the Constitution itself? Manifestly, it was not, and thus that infamous decision and all of its progeny were overturned by this "Conservative" Court.

Horseshit. Your screed is summarily rejected.

Deconstructing Dobbs | Laurence H. Tribe

The chaos and cruelty unleashed in late June by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which wiped out a

www.nybooks.com

 

[Crepitus]

If the CFPB is unconstitutional, it should be disbanded, no?

They failed to prove that it is.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine that the Supreme Court of the United States spent an entire morning debating whether penguins are the primary cause of colon cancer or whether John F. Kennedy was assassinated by aliens from the planet Venus.

That’s more or less the quality of arguments that former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco presented to the Court on Tuesday, as part of a quizzical effort to convince the justices to declare an entire federal agency unconstitutional.

The good news is that the Court appears unlikely to buy what Francisco is selling. All three of the liberal justices took turns beating up Francisco, with an exasperated Justice Sonia Sotomayor telling Francisco at one point that she is trying to understand Francisco’s argument and is at a “total loss.”

Sotomayor appeared to be joined in her frustration by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two Trump appointees who showed little patience for Francisco’s attacks on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency that Francisco is urging them to strike down. Like Sotomayor, Barrett also repeatedly pressed Francisco to explain how, exactly, his proposed interpretation of the Constitution would actually work.

By the end of the argument, even Justice Clarence Thomas — ordinarily the most conservative member of the Court — appeared fed up with Francisco’s inability to articulate a coherent argument.

The Supreme Court’s uncharacteristic moment of sanity

Justices considering a case against the CFPB seem unlikely to trigger a second Great Depression.

www.vox.com

Not that the conservatives necessarily need a coherent argument to be made in order to make an ideologically, not constitutionally, based ruling. But it appears ruling in favor of payday loan companies and the ludicrous argument their counsel is making is a bridge too far.

It seems to be a trend with Republicans, especially Trump

Because they appointed the Justice, the assume they are owed payback. They think they can bring forward any wild theory and the Court will rubber stamp it

 

[DGS49]

It is manifestly unconstitutional. Point to the wording in Article I that gives Congress the power to spend my money on this agency. There is no such wording.

The CASE was flawed, and it may well be that there is no way to create a case that the USSC can rule on. Doesn't change the fact.

 

[Oddball]

Unfortunately, if the given issue before the court is over something that increases The State's power, they most often rule in favor of The State.

 

[rightwinger]

It is manifestly unconstitutional. Point to the wording in Article I that gives Congress the power to spend my money on this agency. There is no such wording.

The CASE was flawed, and it may well be that there is no way to create a case that the USSC can rule on. Doesn't change the fact.

Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

It is four pages long. It cannot possibly address every possible contingency that may occur.
Instead, most of those four pages are dedicated to establishing the three branches of government, their roles and checks and balances

 

[Polishprince]

They failed to prove that it is.

That hasn't been decided yet.

 

[Polishprince]

Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

It is four pages long. It cannot possibly address every possible contingency that may occur.
Instead, most of those four pages are dedicated to establishing the three branches of government, their roles and checks and balances

Actually, it addresses that very thing. The 10th Amendment states that anything not enumerated as a federal responsibility is the responsibility of the states and the people.

 

[Crepitus]

That hasn't been decided yet.

They all seemed pretty skeptical.

 

[konradv]

It is manifestly unconstitutional. Point to the wording in Article I that gives Congress the power to spend my money on this agency. There is no such wording.

The CASE was flawed, and it may well be that there is no way to create a case that the USSC can rule on. Doesn't change the fact.

There’s no such wording, because it’s not required. Anything not expressly prohibited is permitted.

 

[Polishprince]

They all seemed pretty skeptical.

A lot of time the justices seem "skeptical" , particularly when they are quizzing the lawyers about the case.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, it addresses that very thing. The 10th Amendment states that anything not enumerated as a federal responsibility is the responsibility of the states and the people.

Unfortunately, it has never been interpreted that way

No way the states could handle everything that is not specifically delineated in the Constitution

Are States going to each run NASA?

 

[Polishprince]

Unfortunately, it has never been interpreted that way

No way the states could handle everything that is not specifically delineated in the Constitution

Are States going to each run NASA?

NASA is a defense agency, that is essential if America gets involved in wars in outer space.

President Trump understood that when he established the US Space Cadets as the new branch of the military.

 

[rightwinger]

NASA is a defense agency, that is essential if America gets involved in wars in outer space.

President Trump understood that when he established the US Space Cadets as the new branch of the military.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

It is four pages long. It cannot possibly address every possible contingency that may occur.
Instead, most of those four pages are dedicated to establishing the three branches of government, their roles and checks and balances

Exactly, it can’t address every contingency, but then it doesn’t have to, all it needs to do is spell out what the government CAN do, and then say the rest should be up to the states and the people.

That’s exactly what cotus does.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly, it can’t address every contingency, but then it doesn’t have to, all it needs to do is spell out what the government CAN do, and then say the rest should be up to the states and the people.

That’s exactly what cotus does.

Again….it doesn’t work like that outside of Crazy Constitutionalists who scream States Rights