America’s Trumpiest court just declared an entire federal agency unconstitutional

Vox.com ^ | Oct 20, 2022 | Ian Millhiser

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Three judges appointed by former President Donald Trump handed down an astonishing decision on Wednesday, effectively holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal agency charged with protecting consumers from a wide range of predatory activity by lenders and other financial services, is unconstitutional and must be stripped of its authority.

The decision by the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relies on a novel reading of an obscure provision of the Constitution, and is entirely at odds with a Supreme Court decision that rejects the Fifth Circuit’s reading of that provision. This is not unusual behavior from the Fifth Circuit, which often reads the Constitution in novel and unexpected ways that benefit political conservatives and the Republican Party.

Indeed, Judge Cory Wilson admits in the court’s new opinion in Community Financial Services v. CFPB that “every court to consider” the arguments presented in this case has deemed the CFPB to be “constitutionally sound.”

Should the three Trump judges’ decision stand, it would effectively neutralize much of the federal government’s ability to fight financial fraud — although that outcome probably is not likely given that the Fifth Circuit’s decision is such an outlier. As Wilson explains, the CFPB assumed enforcement authority “over 18 federal statutes” when it was formed nearly a dozen years ago, and these statutes “cover everything from credit cards and car payments to mortgages and student loans.”

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

Thank you, God!

And President Trump!!!

[fwdude]

"...often reads the Constitution in novel and unexpected ways..."

Yeah, like what it SAYS.

Vox is a bunch of bowel dwellers.

[fwdude]

Is there anything more obscure and unusual than “penumbras” and “emanations?”

[Bratch]

Another Appeals Court Finds Progressive Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Unconstitutional

October 20, 2022 | Sundance | 94 Comments

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) was originally created by congress (Elizabeth Warren lead) as a quasi-constitutional watchdog agency to reach into the banking and financial system, under the guise of oversight, and extract money by fining entities for CFPB defined regulatory and/or compliance violations.

Essentially, the CFPB is a congressionally authorized far-left extortion scheme in the banking sector.  The CFPB levies fines; the fines generate income; however, unlike traditional fines that go to the U.S. treasury, the CFBP fines are then redistributed to left-wing organizations to help fund their political activism.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren as an outcome of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Within the CFPB Warren tried to set up the head of the agency, the Director, in a manner that that he/she would operate without oversight. Unfortunately, her dictatorial-fiat-design collapsed when challenged in court.  Backstory #1 – Backstory #2

Previously, a federal court found the CFPB Director position held too much power and deemed it unconstitutional. The court decision noted that giving the President power to fire the Director would fix the constitutional problem.  However, a second set of legal challenges targeted the core of the CFPB scheme, the financing.

WASHINGTON DC – An appeals court on Wednesday ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional, in a victory for lenders that have targeted the agency’s structure in a years-long bid to tamp down regulation.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the design of the CFPB violated the Constitution because it receives funding through the Federal Reserve, rather than appropriations legislation passed by Congress. Democrats established the structure when they created the CFPB in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law as a way to shield the bureau from political pressures that could impact its oversight of the finance industry.

The judges also vacated a 2017 small-dollar lending rule targeted by the payday lending advocates who brought the case — the Community Financial Services Association of America and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas.

“Congress’s decision to abdicate its appropriations power under the Constitution, i.e., to cede its power of the purse to the Bureau, violates the Constitution’s structural separation of powers,” the judges wrote.

The appeals court ruling marked the latest victory for the finance industry, which has fought for years in Congress and the courts to blunt the CFPB’s reach and limit its ability to police financial services. Republican lawmakers have also worked for years to stifle the CFPB and revamp its structure, arguing the agency lacks accountability.

“Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique,” Judge Cory Wilson wrote Wednesday. “The Bureau’s perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by the other agencies on offer.”

The CFPB Wednesday declined to say whether it would appeal the decision to the full 5th Circuit. CFPB spokesperson Sam Gilford said “there is nothing novel or unusual about Congress’s decision to fund the CFPB outside of annual spending bills.” (read more)

Here’s where we remind everyone of the importance of regular budget appropriations. There hasn’t been a standard federal budgetary spending process in place since 2008. Every budget since Obama’s first term has been a series of continuous resolutions, omnibus spending bills and appropriations without regular order.

This has not been an accidental outcome.

[mcenedo]

The funding of the CFPB was always illegal. Many argued so at the start. It is an extra government weapon that can be used on ANY financial institution or ANY business that deals with a financial institution. Essentially, everyone.

As many have pointed out, there were only a billion or so OTHER regulatory agencies already in place. The CFPB did not replace even one of those.

Double insulated funding? Was that in the Constitution??

[Rockingham]

Even worse is that the reason for the court’s decision is explained only by way of refutation. The opinion though makes the essence of the ruling quite clear: “Congress’s decision to abdicate its appropriations power under the Constitution, i.e., to cede its power of the purse to the Bureau, violates the Constitution’s structural separation of powers.” The ensuing discussion of the basis for this ruling is detailed and grounded directly on the Constitution and pertinent legal and political history. And the best that this idiot reporter can manage is well, they are Trump judges.

[elpadre]

That’s one down. Get rid of the Department of Education next. They ruined education in America as the scores clearly indicate!!

[Cen-Tejas]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/08/03/voxs-ian-millhiser-reiterates-his-truly-bizarre-hatred-for-us-supreme-court-n2611212

************************************************************

Ian Millhiser is a TRUE America Hater and his words in this article need to understand their source.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

the Fifth Circuit, which often reads the Constitution in novel and unexpected ways that benefit political conservatives and the Republican Party.

And "We The People"

[clearcarbon]

"effectively neutralize much of the federal government’s ability to fight financial fraud"

Does anyone else find this sentence hilarious?"

"There can be only one."