The New (TM) [SCOTUS] thread we dread updates for

1353638404144

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Dismantles is misleading. The part he objected to is the director's shielding and its severable. Democrats should be able to address this legislatively.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    painfulPleasance
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    CFPB is intact, but the requirement that the director can only be fired for-cause is gone, functionally a 5-4 ruling (liberal justices concurred in severability, dissented the rest). It also implies that that would apply to a lot of other agencies? So it can be fixed with a win in November, but...

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    CFPB is intact, but the requirement that the director can only be fired for-cause is gone, functionally a 5-4 ruling (liberal justices concurred in severability, dissented the rest). It also implies that that would apply to a lot of other agencies? So it can be fixed with a win in November, but...

    The key point that Roberts bangs on about is that the other places the shields exist are multi member agencies and not single directorships. He vaguely hand waves towards the constitution while saying it only wants to concentrate power in the hands of the President, clearly, so I'm sure there are some words somewhere I can imply mean that.

    Anyways, I don't think there are a bunch of other posts that have this shield and are single person. The decision mentions the social security administrator so that's some fun third rail action there.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Bright side here is Biden can fire the current shitty director in a couple months rather than a couple years

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    PolaritieNetscapeeMoanderMartini_PhilosopherHeirCantideSpoitCaptain InertiaBrodyShadowfiredurandal4532N1tSt4lkershrykeFencingsaxJaysonFourOremLKGennenalyse RuebenNiryaHacksawpainfulPleasance
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »

    Been skimming through that last one about CFPB and for the life of me, I don't see reason for the unconstitutionality given aside from the obvious "Because we said so".
    Here's a bit from the start of their justification for their opinion:
    The CFPB’s single-Director configuration is also incompatible with the structure of the Constitution, which—with the sole exception of the Presidency—scrupulously avoids concentrating power in the hands of any single individual.
    And it goes on about how there should only ever be a single executive in charge of anything, The President, because reasons. I don't know about the rest of you but I find this a real ass-pull. Where is presuming that congress knew what it was doing and what it wanted in structuring it this way and therefore constitutional?

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    monikerBlackDragon480Phoenix-Ddurandal4532Orcaemp123Mill
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    That was a ten second rollercoaster. SCOTUS dismantling the CFPB would have had an enormous impact on my job.

    Captain InertiaAbsoluteZeroFencingsaxHappylilElf
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Unitary executive theory is a thing. It's the GOP's theory behind destroying pretty much the entire regulatory state.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    BigJoeMDoodmannPolaritiemonikerBlackDragon480Captain InertiaShadowfireemp123HedgethornshrykeFencingsaxNobeardGennenalyse RuebenMillHacksaw
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »

    Been skimming through that last one about CFPB and for the life of me, I don't see reason for the unconstitutionality given aside from the obvious "Because we said so".
    Here's a bit from the start of their justification for their opinion:
    The CFPB’s single-Director configuration is also incompatible with the structure of the Constitution, which—with the sole exception of the Presidency—scrupulously avoids concentrating power in the hands of any single individual.
    And it goes on about how there should only ever be a single executive in charge of anything, The President, because reasons. I don't know about the rest of you but I find this a real ass-pull. Where is presuming that congress knew what it was doing and what it wanted in structuring it this way and therefore constitutional?

    The whole section about the 5 year term and how some presidents might not appoint a director at all and how unfair it was just made me ask "Really Mr Chief Justice?"

    Also hoo boy does he go on for like a page about how Whole Woman's Health was wrong but stare decisis but ya know stare decisis isn't insurmountable and boy wouldn't it be bad if somebody just challenged that whole ruling to me and my four fellow conservatives?

    Martini_PhilosopherFencingsax
  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style Warning: Mothership Reporting Kennewick, WARegistered User regular
    I can see the reasoning on the CFPB ruling. Just a bummer that it's gonna end up doing some damage because Trump. Southpaw updated with a correction that the decision basically just addresses the non-removable director clause.



    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Unitary executive theory is a thing. It's the GOP's theory behind destroying pretty much the entire regulatory state.

    But it's a bad legal theory that suddenly disappears the moment they're on the minority and don't want to see good things happen to the not-white, not-rich folks.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    HeirBlackDragon480Phoenix-DOrcaFencingsaxBigJoeMHefflingpainfulPleasance
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Unitary executive theory is a thing. It's the GOP's theory behind destroying pretty much the entire regulatory state.

    It is, of course, utter nonsense. The constitution is silent on the executive branch beyond the office of the president... basically the entire structure of the branch is an invention of Congress, including things like the cabinet.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    DoodmannMartini_PhilosophermonikerBlackDragon480never dieCaptain InertiaDoctorArchPhoenix-DOrcaemp123FencingsaxNobeardGennenalyse RuebenMillpainfulPleasance
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Unitary executive theory is a thing. It's the GOP's theory behind destroying pretty much the entire regulatory state.

    Also bringing back the Spoils System. Why should the Director of the CFPB be a professional with relevant experience when he could be my poker buddy?

    VishNubDoodmannenlightenedbumCaptain InertiaMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomOrcaN1tSt4lkershrykeFencingsaxNobeardGennenalyse RuebenHacksawHeffling
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Well, obviously. And they won't quite come after the Federal Reserve because that would obviously be a disaster. Even though under unitary executive it's blatantly constitutional. (spoiler: it's not actually)

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerDoodmannPhoenix-D
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Six opinions were issued on the abortion case, anybody care to guess the three who didn't?
    RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan. Gee, what do they have in common.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Captain InertiaMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomDarkPrimusjdarksunshrykeFencingsaxNobeard
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    I'm curious why the director of the CFPB was shielded in the first place. The obvious answer is to insulate them from political pressure. But is there a reason why this is more important in the case of the CFPB than in, say, the EPA or the Department of Labor or... ?

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I'm curious why the director of the CFPB was shielded in the first place. The obvious answer is to insulate them from political pressure. But is there a reason why this is more important in the case of the CFPB than in, say, the EPA or the Department of Labor or... ?

    Oh I know this because I just read Robert's bitching. These kinds of shields are fairly recent except for a single case of a year in the civil war. They only started being a thing in like the 90's. As the founders didn't do this it is clearly unconstitutional, for reasons.

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I'm curious why the director of the CFPB was shielded in the first place. The obvious answer is to insulate them from political pressure. But is there a reason why this is more important in the case of the CFPB than in, say, the EPA or the Department of Labor or... ?

    They wrote it into the law specifically to avoid what happened anyway.

    I'm not sure how they can fix it legislatively when it was already a part of the original text?

    steam_sig.png
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Six opinions were issued on the abortion case, anybody care to guess the three who didn't?
    RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan. Gee, what do they have in common.

    Please men, tell me what to think about women’s health

    BlackDragon480Rhesus PositiveMartini_PhilosopherTetraNitroCubaneCommander ZoomOrcaN1tSt4lkerMorganVShadowfirejdarksunHeirFencingsaxNobeardJaysonFourbrynhrtmnGennenalyse RuebenDavid WalgasHacksawHefflingFleur de AlysAbsoluteZeropainfulPleasance
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    I'm curious why the director of the CFPB was shielded in the first place. The obvious answer is to insulate them from political pressure. But is there a reason why this is more important in the case of the CFPB than in, say, the EPA or the Department of Labor or... ?

    They wrote it into the law specifically to avoid what happened anyway.

    I'm not sure how they can fix it legislatively when it was already a part of the original text?

    Roberts laid out that the objection wouldn't hold if it were a multi member board. Though he did mention that all his examples where evenly split along partisan lines. So expect the answer to vary depending on how likely a permanent republican majority appears at the moment.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The good news is that Biden can fire the hack Trump put in there on January 21. The bad news is that President Hawley can install Jamie Dimon's nephew the day after he's inaugurated.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    MrMistermonikerCommander ZoomOrcaemp123shrykeHeirFencingsaxGennenalyse Rueben
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Wait, so whats Whole Women's Health? I get that they cut down an abortion bill, which is always a win, just trying to figure out what all is happening here.

    Also, to clarify, CFPB still exists? Just the leader can be fire by the President whenever? I assume the CFPB is good if conservatives are chomping at the bit to kill it?

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Wait, so whats Whole Women's Health? I get that they cut down an abortion bill, which is always a win, just trying to figure out what all is happening here.

    Also, to clarify, CFPB still exists? Just the leader can be fire by the President whenever? I assume the CFPB is good if conservatives are chomping at the bit to kill it?

    CFPB was doing good and it was a big part of Warren's resume in her primary run iirc?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Martini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480monikerOrcaemp123shrykeFencingsaxJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenAbsoluteZero
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Wait, so whats Whole Women's Health? I get that they cut down an abortion bill, which is always a win, just trying to figure out what all is happening here.

    Also, to clarify, CFPB still exists? Just the leader can be fire by the President whenever? I assume the CFPB is good if conservatives are chomping at the bit to kill it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt

    2016 case saying you can't place undue burdens on women seeking abortions.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Wait, so whats Whole Women's Health? I get that they cut down an abortion bill, which is always a win, just trying to figure out what all is happening here.

    Also, to clarify, CFPB still exists? Just the leader can be fire by the President whenever? I assume the CFPB is good if conservatives are chomping at the bit to kill it?

    Whole Women's Health was a ruling from the olden times of four years ago, that held that TRAP (targeted restrictions on abortion providers) laws that don't ban abortion but seek to regulation abortion clinics out of existence with a bullshit pretense are unconstitutional. Roberts dissented in that case, he thinks they're actually fine. But it turns out he respects precedent at least to the degree that if you write the same fucking law as the Texas law that they overturned in that case, he's not going to side with you.

    (Really, he can read a poll and thinks that if he did overturn WWH that November would go worse for the GOP)

    CFPB still exists, but its director is at the whim of the president rather than being independent. CFPB was Elizabeth Warren's idea to fight the manipulation, trickery, and outright fraud of the financial industry in the wake of the 2008 crash. The GOP and the big banks HATED it. And hated her for proposing it. They made it clear she would never win Senate confirmation to become its head...so she ran for Senate instead.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerdurandal4532shrykeemp123FencingsaxHeirJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenMoridin889Mill
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Wait, so whats Whole Women's Health? I get that they cut down an abortion bill, which is always a win, just trying to figure out what all is happening here.

    Also, to clarify, CFPB still exists? Just the leader can be fire by the President whenever? I assume the CFPB is good if conservatives are chomping at the bit to kill it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt

    2016 case saying you can't place undue burdens on women seeking abortions.

    And it sounds like they're already walking that back - this new ruling weakens that and suggests they're open to overturning it.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited June 29
    The CFPB is successful in that it’s an incredibly expensive and difficult regulator to deal with so banks go to great lengths (well, compared to before) to avoid having to interact with the CFPB at all, which is typically good for consumers. I think some other industries need regulation like this too....

    Even WITH Kathy Kraninger, who has relaxed some CFPB guidances, but doesn’t really control the army of bureaucrats that the banks actually worry about

    Captain Inertia on
    durandal4532FencingsaxAbsoluteZero
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I'm curious why the director of the CFPB was shielded in the first place. The obvious answer is to insulate them from political pressure. But is there a reason why this is more important in the case of the CFPB than in, say, the EPA or the Department of Labor or... ?

    No, mostly just time's arrow and the experience of history. The bipartisan commission model that made up most of FDR's alphabet soup was intended to shield the FCC &c. from politics as well, but it failed to do so. This is a new approach to accomplish the same end since the previous attempts were inadequate.

    durandal4532SpoitMartini_PhilosophershrykeFencingsaxMoridin889
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    So Mr Chief Justice, just where did your stare decisis go? And the whole Establishment Clause? Or did you feel like cherry-picking all of our decisions this term?


    By a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court's conservatives rule that Montana must fund private religious schools if it funds private secular schools. This is a massive blow to the separation of church and state, and a maximalist decision by Roberts.


    Here is what's particularly shocking about this decision. The Montana Supreme Court struck down tax benefits for private religious AND secular schools. Now SCOTUS has ordered the state to revive tax benefits for both kinds of schools. This outcome simply makes no sense.


    These two sentences, from Roberts' majority opinion, might as well repeal the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court spent years debating whether states that funded private schools were even ALLOWED to fund religious schools. Now Roberts declares that they MUST. Incredible.
    A State need not subsidize private education. But once decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools because they are religious.

    That last part is pants-on-head bonkers and the inverse of every conclusion the Establishment Clause has ever been used to draw. It is tantamount to saying that since the state is a secular institution it must establish a religion if none exists for express purposes of having such a thing.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Quick, some Muslim private school request state funding and see how fast SCOTUS says that can fuck right off.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Rhesus PositiveDevoutlyApatheticAthenorEmperorSethSpecial KTetraNitroCubaneRichymonikerPhoenix-DMillIncenjucarjdarksunRingoCantideBrodyShadowfireCaptain InertiaStabbity StyleDoctorArchHeirOrcaN1tSt4lkerbrynhrtmnMarty81GONG-00ArbitraryDescriptorMoridin889emp123BlackDragon480CalicaMorganVFencingsax38thDoezagdrobNobeardshrykeHacksawNiryafortisKetBraboogedybooHefflingsanstodoBullheadJaysonFourMatevMr FuzzbuttKamarthatassemblyguynever dieAbsoluteZerokimeTofystedethpainfulPleasance
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I wonder if Lawerence Tribe is proud of his student today.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Quick, some Muslim private school request state funding and see how fast SCOTUS says that can fuck right off.

    They'll have a narrow rolling wing am exception for it

    steam_sig.png
    OrcaNetscape
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Quick, some Muslim private school request state funding and see how fast SCOTUS says that can fuck right off.

    Come on satanists this is begging for your trolling.

    Rhesus PositiveAthenorTetraNitroCubaneAiouaRichyDevoutlyApatheticMillGilgaronSpecial KTomantaJragghenIncenjucarEmperorSethMartini_PhilosopherRingoBrodyShadowfirePolaritieoverride367Stabbity StyleJombalayaAistanHeirMetzger MeisterHappylilElfbrynhrtmnGONG-00ArbitraryDescriptorMoridin889emp123BlackDragon480CalicaMorganVFencingsaxXantomasToxzagdrobNobeardshrykeHacksawKetBraboogedybooHefflingBullheadJaysonFourMatevForarMr FuzzbuttKamarMegaMekDavid WalgasFleur de Alysthatassemblyguynever dieAbsoluteZerokimeTofystedethpainfulPleasance
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular


    Staff writer for Slate with Part of Sotoymayor's dissent.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    jdarksunBrodymonikerHeirBlackDragon480MorganVNobeardshrykesanstodoJaysonFournever diekimeTofystedeth
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    I can sort of see if you are funding private schools having to do religious ones as well but the tax credit supporting the secular ones was removed forcing a state to reinstate something to fund both is such a weird option to choose. That sets up some very strange precedents of forcing states to create tax credits out of whole cloth.

  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    So is this the other shoe dropping from the rulings in the last few days? Like this seems a massive overreach of Separation of Church and State.

    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
    OrcaBullhead
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    So is this the other shoe dropping from the rulings in the last few days? Like this seems a massive overreach of Separation of Church and State.

    I think we still have trumps taxes don't we?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Maybe states should stop funding private education.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    AthenorEmperorSethBigJoeMjdarksunStabbity StyleOrcaHappylilElfGONG-00EncCalicaFencingsax38thDoezagdrobNobeardNetscapeSpoitWACriminalKetBraBullheadMatevKamarMegaMekDavid WalgasFleur de AlysAbsoluteZerokimeTofystedeth
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Maybe states should stop funding private education.

    That's what Montana did and Roberts said that wasn't an option. It's a large part of the pants-on-head craziness of this ruling.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    RingoAngelHedgieJragghenQanamilPolaritieCaptain InertiaDoctorArchmonikerN1tSt4lkerEncemp123BlackDragon480MorganVFencingsaxzagdrobNetscapeHefflingKamarTofystedeth
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Maybe states should stop funding private education.

    The thing is that's what it seems like Montana did and now the SCOTUS says "no now you have to do that and to religious schools" I wonder what will happen in Washington state with our charter school dumb fuckery.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
Sign In or Register to comment.