JUST IN: Supreme Court Begins New Term With Oral Arguments In Case About CFPB's Constitutionality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Lady justice status is not totally blind at all because she can see who pays her more. bye by CFPB!
Keagan, Sotamyor, Jackson and the solicitor general must all get together before arguments. Their questions are loaded to make the general look good (right). If Congress can create it should be able to destroy. If this agency needs to go then Congress should just eliminate it, not mess with the funding mechanism just get rid of it. Time to reorganize the government!
Yes, reorganize the government, see my statement.
The pro always frame questions that way as the opposite is true as well.
This case showcased great differences in the way Justices question the Parties; a fun argument to listen to!
They're completely missing the point that the money comes from an independent agency called the Fed, not Congress. Which does matter because Congress they cannot simply vote on a new appropriation, they'd have to write and pass and amend a bill to change the amount of money. It's a different process.
Wrong
Have you heard of the FDIC? Which gets money from another source, so what's your point exactly?
If the Constitution doesn’t limit it then Congress can do it
I love listening to intellectual minds, but, i must say, what they're discussing is moot as our Congress cannot even pick a Speaker, it cannot pass a budget, it cannot come to any consensus of any sort.
That being said, soneone, somehow (unless via a coup) needs to get a case to SCOTUS on restructuring our government. But this is advanced nuclear physics talk when Our Congress cannot even perform remedial math.
That doesn't mean that Congress and the Supreme Court cannot ask/reasonably expect to receive a yearly financial statement from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau agency, simply accounting for government's taxpayer funds spent each year, instead of trying to actually control the "purse strings". It allows the agency's funding to be separate from government's approval authority, while maintaining the CFPB agency's responsibility to direct spending of such funds carefully. That genuinely *IS* a part of the federal government's responsibility. IMHO. This agency does work on the behalf of protecting American citizens; therefore it's important that it remains independent of increasingly powerful federal government in the United States.
The insidious Alto throwing a bone to the lawyer because he had no argument.
The scotus judges have some serious conflict of interest with this case. And we need to keep the safeguards the cfpb has in place.
I agree with this sentiment, but I doubt the conservative justices will let the Consumer financial protection bureau get off scott free.
We might lose financial protections
They are not judges, They are Justices, one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices
@@KevinGoldfinger You can call them what you want, but the constitution calls them judges.
@@KevinGoldfinger is it a court? Do they hear arguments and make rulings? They are judges...they just have a special title. Like calling the janitor a sanitation specialist...
Unelected bureaucrats should not be given unlimited power to do as they wish
Congress enacted a spending bill in creating the CFPB. It decided that its function was so important that it shouldn't be subject to annual spending appropriations and instead chose to say that they are funded by the Federal Reserve and it's budget must be focused solely on the function of the agency as dictated by Congress and is provided up to a certain dollar amount as a percentage of Fed revenue indexed to inflation. That's an appropriation.
The Congress defines it as follows: "Appropriation: A law of Congress that provides an agency with budget authority. An appropriation allows the agency to incur obligations and to make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes. Appropriations are definite (a specific sum of money) or indefinite (an amount for "such sums as may be necessary")."
The appropriation here is indefinite. The agency is audited annually, reports are given to Congress on the spending and resources, the director must appear before Congress and answer for its budget if called to testify, and Congress can change or eliminate the source of funding by another act If it so chooses. By not changing it they are consenting to it every year. Sounds like an appropriation.
CFPB is Funded by a Privately Owned Consortium of Banks called the Federal Reserve and NOT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY.
It amazes me that some of the most intelligent people in this nation sit on the Supreme Court and NONE of them can see the danger inherent with how the CFPB is set up. But then again, most people do not have common sense (even the most intelligent) and it is up to those who do to try to ring the alarm before it is too late.
Are you also saying Congress also enacted a spending bill when they created the CFPB? Because the FDIC is funded by fees paid by banks.
Also, did you even read what you got from the Constitution? It literally states; to make payments from the U.S. Treasury!
The CFPB doesn't get money from the Treasury, it gets money from the Federal Reserve. They are two separate things!
This is why that basketball player went emo LOL
The post office is private not government
It’s actually quasi government. Part government, part private.
The US Postal Service is an independent agency of the executive branch. The President appoints the governors who oversee the post office when a vacancy arises, but as an independent agency, the President alone can not force a change in their makeup, baring a vacancy to fill. It derives its funding largely through its operation but receives appropriations of Congress. It is one of the few agencies specifically authorized by the Constitution and was founded at the second continental congress in Philadelphia 1775. In 2004 the Supreme Court ruled, "The Postal Service is not subject to antitrust liability. In both form and function, it is not a separate antitrust person from the United States but is part of the Government, and so is not controlled by the antitrust laws."
So, to call it a private organization is wholly inaccurate.
Sounds like MTG, but she's in no way even remotely close to being able to speak that intelligently & coherently, so it must be someone else.
Just because it was done in history doesn’t mean it fits today. The president seems to spend around the world just fine without any restrictions.
Nice tartarian type building....built by horse and buggy i guess😅
The Solicitor General's argument made the point that past appropriation practices violated the separation of powers.
She said no such thing
Army of the world new spy army and seal emblem of army's Force
Justice Thomas is NOT the Chief Justice, why is he given so much wieght?
Where is the chief justice?
MR.RASKIN HAS A BLISTER ON HIS LOWER LIP. MAY I Suggest a DRUG TEST looks to me a Hot tub pipe did that.
What's a hot tub pipe?
@oddjobbob8742Hunter's photo of him in a hot tube..etc...
@oddjobbob8742 I think Mary might need a drug test with the way she delivered that comment.
@@hhunstad2011 I got a perfect score on a drug test once.
College Football Playoff Bowls?