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

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.

  • lady_maria@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1272·
    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·
      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·
        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
      51·
      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·
    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      8·
      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.worldEnglish
    31·
    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.

    • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      491·
      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

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      21·
      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
    131·
    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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    122·
    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·
    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·
      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.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      11·
      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.