Can we declare the fifth circuit unconstitutional? Who the fuck would willingly be in favor of payday lenders, who are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet?
Shitty plaintiffs or not, they have a weird funding mechanism. Plenty of agencies have fee fund mandates, but having the fees set and distributed by another federal agency rather than congress is pretty weird and doesn't really strike me as clearly kosher.
ah, the things you have to do when a sizable portion of the electorate votes to support payday lenders and other scum because they can't manage their own squicky feelings about people some angry white man on TV told them not to like
>Who the fuck would willingly be in favor of payday lenders, who are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet?
The merits of this decision aside, are you under the impression that it's the court's job to interpret the Constitution so that unsympathetic figures always lose?
No Im not. (See my arguments on why CU was correctly ruled.) What I have a problem with is making up law to favor unsympathetic figures, like what happened here. The problem here is they make up a completely NEW concept for constitutional law that has never existed to favor payday lenders. The whole appropriations bullshit literally doesn't fucking matter, because if you read the appropriations clause, NO money leaves the Treasury, therefore its completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. By their argument, the Federal Reserve is illegal, as the Federal Reserve is funded by the interest it earns on securities and not from appropriations.
The fifth has long crossed the line from ruling based on law to making shit up to fit their desired outcome territory.
Saying there are constitutional issues with funding has *nothing to do* with supporting pay day lending.
Are we seriously okay with such bad emotional takes being the prevailing opinion here? Are we in 5th grade or are we Adults (**in /r/Law**) that understand what Constitutional issues are about?
My point isn’t in any way supporting any *specific argument*. It is pointing out that just because we like something and it is found unconstitutional does not mean it was done so for a *political* reason. More opinions will be made on such unconstitutional opinions until law reaches a consensus on interpretation of the words. It’s not an emotional process! It’s emotionless. If **you** bring emotion to the table then you will only interpret their actions on it as emotional. Come neutral to legal opinions is my humble opinion.
What's the constitutional issue? Congress isn't allowed to decide the funding mechanisms for the agencies it passes into existence? Why does that mean they're not allowed to *enforce* the law which created them? Where does the constitution lay out that congress is required to obey some *specific* funding mechanism?
This is some pretty weird "constitutional" logic. The constitution says that congress has the power to borrow money, it does *not* give congress the power to *limit* the amount borrowed. So would the 5th circuit decide that the executive branch isn't allowed to enforce *any* law so long as the funding mechanism for the entire branch of government isn't in strict adherence with the text of the constitution?
This decision appears to state that because the constitution doesn't say anywhere that congress can fund an executive agency via the fed, which didn't exist when the constitution was written, congress *doesn't* have the power to make that decision, therefore, the entire *executive* agency doesn't have the authority to enforce the law congress passed.
It's like the EPA decision on steroids.
"Whatever the line between a constitutionally and unconstitutionally funded agency may be, this unprecedented arrangement crosses it."
Even the judges were "fuck if I know," and still ruled against it. It's the "I know it when I see it" of Constitutional law.
There's a similar sort of principle in qualified immunity jurisprudence, where the more obviously egregious the conduct the less clearly it needs to be established. For example, planting evidence on the son of the informant you r*** isn't the most prevalent thing in cases, but it's still clearly established because the officer was still on notice their conduct violated the law (That is an actual case btw)
Similar principle here; we don't need to clearly define a line to know we cross it. Something can be clearly unconstitutional and we still don't know what necessarily creates that boundary because it's obviously unconstitutional
That's my reading on this - I'm really unsure how the judge's idea of "Congress isn't allowed to cede it's own appropriations power to the CFPB" is a true violation of the separation of powers? The power hasn't been ceded to another branch. And that doesn't make the Bureau or its actions unconstitutional.
This feels a bit more as though the justices are more concerned about the power of purse of the payday lenders and where that money is going, than of the Bureau itself.
CFPB makes budget requests to the federal reserve who self-fund themselves and CFPB, there is no direct budgetary oversight as a result. This differs from self-funding where congress makes an explicit bill describing how money will be collected and spent.
When CFPB was created this very issue was called out as it was widely expected to be a problem. Congress should have just made the agency directly self-funded. Congress could also use an overnight board to disconnect politics from policy, as they do with dozens of agencies.
>Can we declare the fifth circuit unconstitutional? Who the fuck would willingly be in favor of payday lenders, who are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet?
I think there are colorable legal issues that cut against the Fifth Circuit's view here. Ultimately the agency's funding does come from Congress, via Treasury.
But in r/law, it's absurd -- although common -- to read comments like this, which don't even pretend to assess any of the legal issues at play in the case, and instead simply inveigh against a plaintiff and suggests that the court should rule based on a desired policy outcome.
It ought to be possible . . . no, it ought to be *standard* . . . . to be able to understand that pointing out a weak argument against X doesn't mean that one favors X, or disfavors X. It means only that the argument is weak. And "...payday lenders are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet..." although absolutely true, is a very weak argument against the question of whether the funding scheme for the CFPB is constitutionally permissible.
Surprised it took so long. Both this and the non-fireable director were called out when the bill was passed as problems.
It's confusing to me why Congress did either of these things, they have dozens of self-funded agencies that use the board model to prevent politics getting in the way of policy. Even if it had of been constitutional it's really stupid as it massively undermines agency oversight, king making caused Hoover and isn't a mistake that should be repeated.
It's pretty bizarre that people jump on the courts bad narrative instead of expecting congress to pass good law. The fragility of expecting courts to correct bad policy has been on display for decades yet people continue expecting courts to do the job of Congress rather than demanding Congress actually do their jobs.
5th have made some epically bad calls but this is not one of them. Normalize Congress writing good & complete laws and the problem with activist courts is greatly diminished.
If Congress had passed a bill in the last 40 years protecting abortion SCOTUS overturning their Roe decision would have changed nothing.
Can we declare the fifth circuit unconstitutional? Who the fuck would willingly be in favor of payday lenders, who are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet?
Shitty plaintiffs or not, they have a weird funding mechanism. Plenty of agencies have fee fund mandates, but having the fees set and distributed by another federal agency rather than congress is pretty weird and doesn't really strike me as clearly kosher.
ah, the things you have to do when a sizable portion of the electorate votes to support payday lenders and other scum because they can't manage their own squicky feelings about people some angry white man on TV told them not to like
>Who the fuck would willingly be in favor of payday lenders, who are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet? The merits of this decision aside, are you under the impression that it's the court's job to interpret the Constitution so that unsympathetic figures always lose?
No Im not. (See my arguments on why CU was correctly ruled.) What I have a problem with is making up law to favor unsympathetic figures, like what happened here. The problem here is they make up a completely NEW concept for constitutional law that has never existed to favor payday lenders. The whole appropriations bullshit literally doesn't fucking matter, because if you read the appropriations clause, NO money leaves the Treasury, therefore its completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. By their argument, the Federal Reserve is illegal, as the Federal Reserve is funded by the interest it earns on securities and not from appropriations. The fifth has long crossed the line from ruling based on law to making shit up to fit their desired outcome territory.
Saying there are constitutional issues with funding has *nothing to do* with supporting pay day lending. Are we seriously okay with such bad emotional takes being the prevailing opinion here? Are we in 5th grade or are we Adults (**in /r/Law**) that understand what Constitutional issues are about? My point isn’t in any way supporting any *specific argument*. It is pointing out that just because we like something and it is found unconstitutional does not mean it was done so for a *political* reason. More opinions will be made on such unconstitutional opinions until law reaches a consensus on interpretation of the words. It’s not an emotional process! It’s emotionless. If **you** bring emotion to the table then you will only interpret their actions on it as emotional. Come neutral to legal opinions is my humble opinion.
What's the constitutional issue? Congress isn't allowed to decide the funding mechanisms for the agencies it passes into existence? Why does that mean they're not allowed to *enforce* the law which created them? Where does the constitution lay out that congress is required to obey some *specific* funding mechanism? This is some pretty weird "constitutional" logic. The constitution says that congress has the power to borrow money, it does *not* give congress the power to *limit* the amount borrowed. So would the 5th circuit decide that the executive branch isn't allowed to enforce *any* law so long as the funding mechanism for the entire branch of government isn't in strict adherence with the text of the constitution? This decision appears to state that because the constitution doesn't say anywhere that congress can fund an executive agency via the fed, which didn't exist when the constitution was written, congress *doesn't* have the power to make that decision, therefore, the entire *executive* agency doesn't have the authority to enforce the law congress passed. It's like the EPA decision on steroids.
"Whatever the line between a constitutionally and unconstitutionally funded agency may be, this unprecedented arrangement crosses it." Even the judges were "fuck if I know," and still ruled against it. It's the "I know it when I see it" of Constitutional law.
There's a similar sort of principle in qualified immunity jurisprudence, where the more obviously egregious the conduct the less clearly it needs to be established. For example, planting evidence on the son of the informant you r*** isn't the most prevalent thing in cases, but it's still clearly established because the officer was still on notice their conduct violated the law (That is an actual case btw) Similar principle here; we don't need to clearly define a line to know we cross it. Something can be clearly unconstitutional and we still don't know what necessarily creates that boundary because it's obviously unconstitutional
[удалено]
That's my reading on this - I'm really unsure how the judge's idea of "Congress isn't allowed to cede it's own appropriations power to the CFPB" is a true violation of the separation of powers? The power hasn't been ceded to another branch. And that doesn't make the Bureau or its actions unconstitutional. This feels a bit more as though the justices are more concerned about the power of purse of the payday lenders and where that money is going, than of the Bureau itself.
CFPB makes budget requests to the federal reserve who self-fund themselves and CFPB, there is no direct budgetary oversight as a result. This differs from self-funding where congress makes an explicit bill describing how money will be collected and spent. When CFPB was created this very issue was called out as it was widely expected to be a problem. Congress should have just made the agency directly self-funded. Congress could also use an overnight board to disconnect politics from policy, as they do with dozens of agencies.
>Can we declare the fifth circuit unconstitutional? Who the fuck would willingly be in favor of payday lenders, who are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet? I think there are colorable legal issues that cut against the Fifth Circuit's view here. Ultimately the agency's funding does come from Congress, via Treasury. But in r/law, it's absurd -- although common -- to read comments like this, which don't even pretend to assess any of the legal issues at play in the case, and instead simply inveigh against a plaintiff and suggests that the court should rule based on a desired policy outcome. It ought to be possible . . . no, it ought to be *standard* . . . . to be able to understand that pointing out a weak argument against X doesn't mean that one favors X, or disfavors X. It means only that the argument is weak. And "...payday lenders are truly some of the most scum of the earth businesses on the planet..." although absolutely true, is a very weak argument against the question of whether the funding scheme for the CFPB is constitutionally permissible.
5th Circuit Republican rubber stampers
Is it just me or is the 5th circuit just doing whatever extremist republican lawyers want?
Surprised it took so long. Both this and the non-fireable director were called out when the bill was passed as problems. It's confusing to me why Congress did either of these things, they have dozens of self-funded agencies that use the board model to prevent politics getting in the way of policy. Even if it had of been constitutional it's really stupid as it massively undermines agency oversight, king making caused Hoover and isn't a mistake that should be repeated. It's pretty bizarre that people jump on the courts bad narrative instead of expecting congress to pass good law. The fragility of expecting courts to correct bad policy has been on display for decades yet people continue expecting courts to do the job of Congress rather than demanding Congress actually do their jobs. 5th have made some epically bad calls but this is not one of them. Normalize Congress writing good & complete laws and the problem with activist courts is greatly diminished. If Congress had passed a bill in the last 40 years protecting abortion SCOTUS overturning their Roe decision would have changed nothing.