Quote:

---

The Fifth Circuit just ruled that the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

"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," a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case brought by a payday lending group against the CFPB's 2017 payday lending rule.

---

In other words, they were improperly delegating something that was their responsibility their power to exercise.

Quote:

---

"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."

---

We know that giving power to unaccountable bureaucracies something that Democrats love to do, especially when they are in control of the bureaucracies ends up being a bad idea, so this is a great decision.
It is probably going to be appealed further, so this is likely not the end of it.

---

But it is a start.

LINK

We have known all along that eventually the SCOTUS would scrap this once it gets there.

The parts related to appointment and accountability are clearly unconstitutional. This means that Jackson, Sotomayor, and maybe Roberts will support it. I don't think even Kagan will sign off on this one. It is too egregious.

Of course, senator Pocahontas never flinched at passing a bill she knew was unconstitutional because she could care less what the 18th Century Indian killers wrote in that document.

In reply to aggiehawg Why did this take so long to get to the 5th circuit?

When it passed I figured this would get to the SCOTUS in 3-5 years MAX.

In reply to Central Committee

Central Committee said:

---

We have known all along that eventually the SCOTUS would scrap this once it gets there.

The parts related to appointment and accountability are clearly unconstitutional. This means that Jackson, Sotomayor, and maybe Roberts will support it. I don't think even Kagan will sign off on this one. It is too egregious.

Of course, senator Pocahontas never flinched at passing a bill she knew was unconstitutional because she could care less what the 18th Century Indian killers wrote in that document.

---

The CFPB was created and used as a funding mechanism for progressive causes. Corporations found to be in violation can pay the fine or a smaller settlement amount in the form of a donation to specified groups without admitting guilt. This is all by design by progs to get their side private funding and Pocahontas is the ringleader. I hope SCOTUS drives a stake into the heart of that vampiric beast, but Kagan will vote in their favor, not against it.

In reply to Central Committee

Central Committee said:

---

Why did this take so long to get to the 5th circuit?

When it passed I figured this would get to the SCOTUS in 3-5 years MAX.

---

Probably because no one was hurt as bad as Pay Day lenders in 2015. The CFPB basically told banks to stop doing business with them or expect severe audits etc. due to this pawnshops and even firearm dealers were sucked into it as well.

Operation Choke Point cut funding for our business out of the blue as Chase Bank said no more.

In reply to Yesterday

Quote:

---

Probably because no one was hurt as bad as Pay Day lenders in 2015. The CFPB basically told banks to stop doing business with them or expect severe audits etc. due to this pawnshops and even firearm dealers were sucked into it as well.

Operation Choke Point cut funding for our business out of the blue as Chase Bank said no more.

---

It was always a bad piece of legislation. But since the first casualties were considered "undesirable businesses" by the authors of the bill, took a long time to see how far the fallout would go and how much $$$$ it was really costing businesses that could fight back.

Can they do the same thing to the Federal Reserve now?

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Probably because no one was hurt as bad as Pay Day lenders in 2015. The CFPB basically told banks to stop doing business with them or expect severe audits etc. due to this pawnshops and even firearm dealers were sucked into it as well.

Operation Choke Point cut funding for our business out of the blue as Chase Bank said no more.

---

It was always a bad piece of legislation. But since the first casualties were considered "undesirable businesses" by the authors of the bill, took a long time to see how far the fallout would go and how much $$$$ it was really costing businesses that could fight back.

---

The crazy thing now is that it doesn't matter what the supreme court says. In any matter. There is no enforcement mechanism. All of their decisions are cast upon the ocean breeze because they relied on other branches to enforce them.

There is no obligation to enforce the court's will without the acceptance of the executive. So, beyond individual states who find the ruling favorable, and with the power to enforce with the state police , rulings from the supreme court have been rendered ineffectual except in matters that require federal funding. Even so, the federal officers can choose to ignore rulings. There is no mechanism beyond the courts that compells states to comply if the executive decides to ignore.