American consumers, Bush, CFPB, Checks and Balances, Consumer Protection Agency, Dictatorship, former Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), George Bush, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Judge Buckwalter, Judge Timothy Kelly, Mick Mulvaney, New York Swamp, Representative Bill Foster (D-IL), Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Representative Charlie Crist (D-FL), Representative Dan Kildee (D-MI), Representative Denny Heck (D-WA), Representative Gwen S. Moore (D-WI), Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), Representative John K. Delaney (D-MD), Representative Juan Vargas (D-CA), Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), Representative Michael E. Capuano (D-MA), Representative Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY), Representative Ruben J. Kihuen (D-NV), Representative Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), separation of powers, Trump, Wall Street, Waters
Judge Timothy James Kelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Nominated by Donald J. Trump on June 7, 2017; Confirmed by the Senate on September 5, 2017, ruled in Trump’s favor, apparently against the law as written.
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was founded after the global financial crisis of 2008. Its job is to protect consumers against predatory lending and and other questionable practices by banks, credit card companies, lenders and debt collectors” (VOA)
Effectively appointed, i.e. nominated and approved by a Republican dominated Congress, he clerked for Buckwalter, a Bush Sr. appointee, and was brought into government service/power under Bush Jr.
So, it doesn’t matter what the law is, Trump is allowed to override the law on the books due to precedent? The decision should have been made by a non-Trump appointee. And, it brings to the surface, again, the problem of having judicial appointees, as opposed to elected judges. This seems to be even more dangerous in a common law jurisdiction.
“The White House and bureau lawyers, in turn, said there were precedents showing that Trump was authorized to fill temporary vacancies in federal agencies even when another law of succession might be on the books” (VOA). ?????????!!!!!!!!!!
“In the United States, the courts have stated consistently that the text of the statute is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute. “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. … [C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’“. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent (The above statement appears in contradiction to other parts of the article.)
Legal or not, it should be clear to the average person that there is something wrong with a Trump appointee ruling in favor of an interim appointee of Trump who has indicated he wants to destroy the agency in question. It also fits into an apparent pattern of Trump trying to bypass Congress.
“Judge Rules in Trump’s Favor on Consumer Agency Leadership
November 28, 2017 7:45 PM VOA News
A U.S. District Court judge in Washington ruled Tuesday in favor of President Donald Trump in his bid to install White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Judge Timothy Kelly declined to stop, on an emergency basis, the president from making Mulvaney the acting director of the CFPB. In doing so, Kelly ruled against Leandra English, the CFPB’s deputy director. English had requested an emergency restraining order to stop Mulvaney from becoming acting director, claiming the position was rightfully hers.
Mulvaney is a former small-business owner and congressman who once called the agency a “sick, sad” joke that should be abolished.
“This agency will stay open. Rumors that I’m going to set the place on fire or blow it up or lock the doors are completely false,” he told reporters on Monday. “I am a member of the executive branch of government. We intend to execute the laws of the United States.”
The battle over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau boiled over last week.
Former Director Richard Cordray, criticized by conservative Republicans and business interests in Washington, abruptly resigned and named English, his chief of staff, as deputy director, meaning she would be his successor.
Trump countered by appointing Mulvaney, who opposes government regulations on business as much as Cordray believes they are essential.
2011 law cited
English had argued that the law that created the agency in 2011 clearly spelled out that she should be acting director. Her lawsuit against Mulvaney asked the court to deny the Trump administration’s claim that another law gave the president the power to name an acting director.
The White House and bureau lawyers, in turn, said there were precedents showing that Trump was authorized to fill temporary vacancies in federal agencies even when another law of succession might be on the books.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was founded after the global financial crisis of 2008. Its job is to protect consumers against predatory lending and and other questionable practices by banks, credit card companies, lenders and debt collectors.
Republicans, including Mulvaney, have said the agency has too much power and loads down banks with too much bureaucracy.”