Will the conservatives on the SC do the right thing?

[Catsnmeters]

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.

Except for the 9th amendment which the right seems to conveniently leave out.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Sure it does. The 10th amendment is a very straight forward text. The ones who it doesn’t work for are those who believe the federal government is a catch all for everything they feel it should provide.

The fact that like..90% of the arguments that take place here on USMB should be an example of why the federal government having all this power is a bad idea.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure it does. The 10th amendment is a very straight forward text. The ones who it doesn’t work for are those who believe the federal government is a catch all for everything they feel it should provide.

The fact that like..90% of the arguments that take place here on USMB should be an example of why the federal government having all this power is a bad idea.

You are delusional and the Supreme Court doesn’t endorse your view of the Tenth Amendment

 

[whitehall]

The Court rules on Constitutional issues. It's interesting that "liberal" Justices aren't held to any sort of Constitutional restraints but are considered to be social activists in robes.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are delusional and the Supreme Court doesn’t endorse your view of the Tenth Amendment

Hmm, where has the Supreme Court said the 10th amendment means something else?

Do you, or do you not, believe the constitution is the law of the land?

 

[berg80]

It is manifestly unconstitutional.

They claim that an entire federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), is unconstitutional. And they do so based on an interpretation of the Constitution that would invalidate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and countless other federal programs. As the Justice Department notes in one of its briefs, the 2022 legislation funding the federal government contains more than 400 provisions that are invalid under these plaintiffs’ reading of the Constitution.

Perhaps recognizing that the justices are unlikely to declare the majority of all federal spending unconstitutional, the Community Financial plaintiffs then spend much of their brief suggesting arbitrary limits the Court could place on these plaintiffs’ already arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution. Without citing any legal authorities, for example, the Consumer Financial plaintiffs claim that Social Security might be excepted from the new legal regime so long as Congress is careful about how it pays for the Social Security Administration’s staff.

A new Supreme Court case could trigger a second Great Depression

America’s Trumpiest court handed down a shockingly dangerous decision. The Supreme Court is likely, but not certain, to fix it.

www.vox.com

 

[hadit]

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

Nonsense. Conservatives deliberately appoint free thinking justices that will examine each case as it is presented. Liberals appoint justices they are assured will follow the party line in lockstep.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The CFPB doesn't go through the appropriations process like those other agencies, it goes through the Fed. That's the issue at hand. Congress doesn't allocate funds, the funds come from fees applied by the Fed to various companies.

So congress isn't the loop, which for a supposed executive federal agency, isn't following the appropriations power of congress.

 

[berg80]

The CFPB doesn't go through the appropriations process like those other agencies, it goes through the Fed. That's the issue at hand. Congress doesn't allocate funds, the funds come from fees applied by the Fed to various companies.

So congress isn't the loop, which for a supposed executive federal agency, isn't following the appropriations power of congress.

Francisco claims that the CFPB exceeds Congress’s power under a provision of the Constitution which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” As the Supreme Court said in Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937), this provision “means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.” So, before the federal government spends any money, Congress must pass a law permitting it to do so.

The problem with Francisco’s argument is that Congress did pass a law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which funds the CFPB. So, under well-established law, Francisco’s arguments are flat-out wrong. Notably, before the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case, no court had ever held that any act of Congress violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause.

 

[martybegan]

Francisco claims that the CFPB exceeds Congress’s power under a provision of the Constitution which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” As the Supreme Court said in Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937), this provision “means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.” So, before the federal government spends any money, Congress must pass a law permitting it to do so.

The problem with Francisco’s argument is that Congress did pass a law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which funds the CFPB. So, under well-established law, Francisco’s arguments are flat-out wrong. Notably, before the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case, no court had ever held that any act of Congress violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause.

But it funds them in perpetuity, removing them from the usual requirement to have their funding re-voted on LIKE EVERY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY.

Everyone else has to go back begging to congress every year, but apparently not the CFPB.

 

[rightwinger]

Nonsense. Conservatives deliberately appoint free thinking justices that will examine each case as it is presented. Liberals appoint justices they are assured will follow the party line in lockstep.

You haven’t been following recent decisions or ethics compromised

 

[berg80]

But it funds them in perpetuity, removing them from the usual requirement to have their funding re-voted on LIKE EVERY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY.

Everyone else has to go back begging to congress every year, but apparently not the CFPB.

Didn't read this part?

The problem with Francisco’s argument is that Congress did pass a law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which funds the CFPB. So, under well-established law, Francisco’s arguments are flat-out wrong.

 

[g5000]

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

Except it isn't.

 

[Robert W]

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.

I put zero trust in VOX to accurately report court proceedings. I am not simply sticking up for Francisco, but the man is a very respected person before the court.

 

[Independentthinker]

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.

Funny how you guys applaud it when the court decides something in your favor and then all other times you claim democracy has been taken away.

 

[hadit]

You haven’t been following recent decisions or ethics compromised

Thankfully, conservative justices don't legislate from the bench. Liberals do that.

 

[rightwinger]

Thankfully, conservative justices don't legislate from the bench. Liberals do that.

 

[Robert W]

Thankfully, conservative justices don't legislate from the bench. Liberals do that.

Why do you call them Liberals?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And they do so based on an interpretation of the Constitution that would invalidate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and countless other federal programs.

This is what it's really about, conservatives' reckless, irresponsible, wrong-headed efforts to eliminate necessary and proper Federal programs and regulatory agencies that are perfectly Constitutional.

 

[22lcidw]

This is what it's really about, conservatives' reckless, irresponsible, wrong-headed efforts to eliminate necessary and proper Federal programs and regulatory agencies that are perfectly Constitutional.

The Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve there are questions with.