Supreme Court rules consumer regulator structure unconstitutional

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Monday said the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Board violates the Constitution.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion.

At oral argument, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the question before the court had an “academic quality” to it. Does it intrude on the president’s constitutional authority to direct the executive branch if he is not free to fire the CFPB’s director?

The bureau was the brainchild of now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) when she was still a Harvard University law professor. It was part of the 2010 overhaul brought on by the financial crisis. Congress gave it broad powers to implement and enforce consumer protection laws and insulated it even from lawmakers by giving it its own budgetary powers.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/supreme-court-rules-consumer-regulator-structure-unconstitutional/ar-BB166Qy2?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=DELLDHP

[usaf-vet]

1. So what does this mean to the little guy. They will now go back to ripping us off in more ways again

[cstanleytech]

3. Simply means the President has the right to fire the head of the agency.

The Senate still has the power to deny or approve the head of it though.

[mr_lebowski]

5. Might have a bit broader meaning than that ...

I would think it kinda means that the Congress can't establish any entity (outside itself) wherein the President can't fire anybody in it that s/he wants to.

[cstanleytech]

6. No, the President is simply the ultimate authority over federal agencies but he cannot establish nor

abolish them on his own.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. So he can fire the patriot in charge, and TRY and install a typical rump appointment

who will be dedicated to taking away all rights from consumers, but whoever he appoints has to be approved by the Senate?

Too bad the senate is controlled by traitors.

[cstanleytech]

12. Sure he can try but the head of agents still have to be confirmed by the Senate which when you do

not have a corrupt party in have majority control of works well.
Unfortunately right now the party with majority control in the Senate is the most corrupt political party that there has ever been in our nations history thus we have people appointed to posts that they are not qualified for or that they are behaving little more than rubber stamping toads for a thin skinned President.

[FBaggins]

13. Correct... and this shouldn't be surprising

Congress can't create a new part of the executive branch that is not subject to the chief executive. The desire to create an independent agency is laudable in many cases... but no branch of government was given the power to create a 4th branch... and a regulatory agency is clearly neither judiciary nor legislature.

There has been some doubt since the CFPB was created that the structure could be unconstitutional. The real question was whether this failing was fatal to the entire CFPB... or could be fixed by severing.

[ripcord]

15. Many people don't seem to understand how lucky we are

SCOTUS ruled that this part of the Dodd-Frank Act could be changed separately, if they hadn't made that ruling the Dodd-Frank Act could have been overturned.

[rickyhall]

8. Too bad We the People can't fire/recall the fucking President.

[cstanleytech]

9. We can via the Senate when we do not have a corrupt Republican party

standing in the way.

[Newest Reality]

2. Does that mean...

That a major, consumer revolt will be necessary?

Just asking for an enemy.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. So far we still have an SEC

So I'm hoping a few tweaks will empower CFPB again

[jaxexpat]

7. You can build an impregnable fortress but.....

if you give the key to Trumpesque persons it is useless for protecting much of value.

[Warpy]

10. Ginsburg was right about the arguments being academic

This ruling doesn't destroy the agency, it simply puts it under either Congressional or Executive oversight.

As it was set up, the effort to make it impervious to partisan politics actually created a department with essentially no oversight by any of the three branches of constitutional government. Even the Pentagon lacks that kind of stature. It's the structure, not the mission, that is at issue here and it's the structure that will need to be changed.

So while it looks like a defeat from the headline, it isn't. The Board didn't just get undone by a stroke of quill pen, it means that someone, quite probably the Executive, will be in charge of hiring and firing.

[turbinetree]

14. So Roberts must have read the 1970, Powell doctrine,........little people don't deserve

anything, but corporations and oligarchies have at it............John Roberts is a federalist society jerk...........I guess when a "elected" representative helps formulates and passes legislation to create a process to protect people its not good enough.............got it Johnny............

[Sgent]

16. This essentially confirms

unitary executive power rests in the President. This has been an ongoing argument for 170 years since Johnson's impeachment.

There is an argument for more independent agencies to an extent (the Fed, FCC, etc.) but its not going to happen now.