285

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

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association, which the justices will hear on October 3, are simultaneously some of the silliest and some of the most dangerous ideas ever presented to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lady_maria@lemmy.world 125 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, I used to work for a bank in the US for several years. CFPB complaints are one of the few ways a consumer could get their issues to be taken seriously and for the bank to actually be held accountable for their violations of federal regulations and general scumbaggery. Upper management was quite afraid of them. 😌

The CFPB investigates important issues like discrimination (such as redlining) and has the ability to prevent a bank from doing certain things, like issuing mortgages. I'm sure it has its problems, but without it, consumers would be screwed over by the banks even more than they already are.

[-] DarkShaggy@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

This is 100% truth. Source: I also work at a large FI and management is very scared of these complaints.

[-] Bipta@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

As a consumer, when a bank gave my girlfriend the runaround I called CFPB to complain and the bank offered to fix the problem and even followed up to make sure we were satisfied with the outcome.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I wish I was aware of this before my 3 years at Chase, so much shady shit in that company. SO MUCH.

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago

Well, we already know that Clearance Thomas is going to be on the side of fucking over everyone.

Alito might jump on that bandwagon as well, depending on what sort of nonsense Fox is playing at any given time.

The other conservatives are harder to pin down on this specific issue. What we do know is that they will just make shit up to justify whatever their rich owners want.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gorsuch will definitely vote for fucking people over. So will Kavanaugh. Most likely Barrett. Basically, our only hope is Roberts, who occasionally sides with the left.

[-] mr_tyler_durden@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

The CFPB is an AMAZING tool to have in your back pocket. Pretty much if money is involved and a company is screwing you over you should jump straight to filing a complaint. When I filed on after Spectrum (formally Time Warner, formally Road Runner) was trying to screw on me equipment I had returned (and I had spent hours on the phone with them) I got a call FROM Spectrum in <3 days from a real person who immediately fixed the issue.

10/10, would use again. If there is a business screwing you over look for the right government agency and file a complaint. You’ll be surprised how effective it is. I’ve also had very good luck with FCC complainants.

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

What's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. …

The CFPB's creation was authorized by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, whose passage in 2010 was a legislative response to the financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent Great Recession and is an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Oh ok, thank you. Yeah that's not good

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

No, but that wasn't the point of the article either.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Well I guess Wells Fargo and other banks will be happy. They can fuck over their customers with immunity.

Imagine a bank takes all your money and close your account. That were this organization could protect you. Now you will be fucked while the bank laughs.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Imagine a world in which leftists used assassins to remove the worst of society instead of just always being the victims of assassination. One can dream.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Which brings us to the single most outrageous fact about the Consumer Financial case: A three-judge panel of the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the claim that the entire CFPB must be struck down.

Significantly, as the DOJ notes in its brief, before the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this very case, “no court has ever held that an Act of Congress violated the Appropriations Clause.”

As the Justice Department tells the Court, “Congress routinely appropriates sums ‘not to exceed’ a particular amount” and “that phrase appears more than 400 times” in the 2022 legislation funding the federal government.

For starters, nearly two-thirds of all federal spending is “perpetual,” with the bulk of that money going to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that are funded by permanent appropriations.

Francisco’s implication appears to be that, if the justices don’t want to create the kind of mass chaos that would result if Social Security and Medicare were invalidated, they could still rule in favor of his client by restricting their decision to federal agencies that do law enforcement.

Jones, who President Ronald Reagan appointed to the Fifth Circuit while she was still a thirtysomething former general counsel to the Texas Republican Party, is known for her harsh and often cruel interpretations of federal law.


The original article contains 2,256 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 90%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] profdc9@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I can't help thinking that a decision of this destructive magnitude would probably trigger nuking the filibuster and trigger packing the court. It would destroy the separation of powers in the government.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It would restore the separation of powers in the government. What we've had recently with the unelected one having so much practically uncheckable power is unsustainable.

[-] LEONHART@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago
[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

No shit. People were just starting to right their ships from 2008 and then the pandemic wiped all that out.

If by second great depression they meant second american revolution, then I'd agree.

this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
285 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2775 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS