Busy day today! The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of liberals again:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a broad challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reversing a lower-court ruling that would have undermined the watchdog agency created by Congress 12 years ago.
The CFPB case is one of several the Supreme Court heard this term that challenge the power of federal agencies, long a target of conservatives concerned about regulation and government bureaucrats whom they see as unaccountable to the public. In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court upheld as constitutional the bureau’s funding mechanism — which is based on profits from the Federal Reserve, rather than an annual appropriation.
This was a ridiculous case claiming that the CFPB was funded unconstitutionally because it doesn't require an annual appropriation from Congress. Instead, it draws whatever funds it needs from the Federal Reserve—which itself is self funded. This means the CFPB is doubly insulated from Congress, which supposedly created some kind of magical quandary that the Constitution prohibited. This is despite the fact that the text of the Constitution is crystal clear:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law....
CFPB funding is plainly "made by Law," which is all that's required. The details are left for Congress.
Nonetheless, the usual suspects on the Fifth Circuit were willing to uphold the right-wing challenge because, hey, that's what they do. But even the current conservative Supreme Court wouldn't play along with them. The only two who dissented from the ruling were Alito, who's hopeless, and Gorsuch, who's becoming more Alito-like all the time.
And Clarence Thomas got to write a majority opinion of some importance! That doesn't happen very often.
No doubt we'll hear about this as an example of decisions showing the Republican justices aren't predictable right-wing hacks. "Sure, they ended legal abortion and gutted the Voting Rights Act, but they upheld the way some obscure federal agency is funded so it all cancels out!"
When they kill Chevron deference, it won't matter as much that they preserved CFPB funding.
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the vs-72 help of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://richesday64.blogspot.com/
Love to have been a fly on that wall: Roberts: "OK Thomas, prove your worth... or at least your clerk's worth... "
Thomas has become much, much more active now that he's in the majority and doesn't need to wheedle a vote out of Roberts.
I think that Thomas is finally getting to do what he wants to do. And that's a scary prospect . . .
And here I thought Thomas was the looniest toon.
Thomas is a curmudgeon. Alito is deranged. Gorsuch is detached from reality.
When SCOTUS finally hands down an ultraconservative ruling between now and June on some other case, Kevin will undoubtedly cite this case as evidence that SCOTUS isn't as out of control as liberals and increasingly centrists fear. "Both liberals win some and conservatives win some in the Roberts court!" as if "not imploding the entire country's housing market" is some kind of "win" for liberals only.
Do you want the court to be centrist or do you want it to be liberal? If the court was comprised of six liberal justices and handed down consistent (ultra)liberal rulings, would you decry the partisanship?
Interesting question but somewhat moot since republicans has had a majority on the supreme court since 1973 when there were two FDR appointees on the court.
Given that Republicans have held the court for over fifty years despite Democrats getting far more votes for both the presidency and Senate over that time frame, I think we liberals are owed at least five decades of total dominance of the court regardless of the vote.
Sound about right to you?
Um, no. I'm not sure why you think the the popular vote for the presidency or total votes for the senate have any relevance. If you want dem presidents to nominate liberal justices, win more elections the way they are decided in the US, not elections won by imaginary rules.
And, a lot of it is luck anyway. Justices don't die or retire at regular intervals.
I don't think it should be a shock that conservative SCOTUS justices will sometimes rule in favor of liberals. They do it whenever it suits their long term goals, either politically (switch in time rulings) or practically (upholding Republican-friendly principles like Purcell.) They do it when the lower court ruling is so extreme as to be unworkable. They do it when the issue at hand plays into their judicial philosophy/framework (which pretty much all of them except Alito have) and they have no other compelling interest in the outcome of the case -- but note, they quickly contradict their "philosophies" (usually with handwaving) when it suits their immediate needs.
And to be fair, you'd see the same thing to some degree with a liberal court occasionally ruling in favor of conservatives.)
This doesn't mean they're moderate or objective or won't be a major obstacle to liberal goals. We have an awful SCOTUS, but we don't have an insane SCOTUS.
That will come once the insane ones at the Appeals level move up the ranks into the SC.
Four more years of Trump with a Republican Senate and we’ll have a Supreme Court that will make Putin seethe with envy.
The right-wing fanatics on SCOTUS understand the need to preserve some semblance of legitimacy with the general public, which requires them to throw liberals the occasional bone, which is exactly what this ruling is about.
And now I'm dreading what the next few ruling are going to be like . . . .
The didn't really rule in favor of liberals though, this was by far the most conservative outcome. A ruling against the CFPB funding mechanism would also be a ruling against the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and who knows what else. Invalidating all US currency and causing the collapse of the banking system wouldn't normally be considered a conservative position.
As Kevin himself acknowledged in one of his own blog posts earlier this very day: the situation with the current Supreme Court is complex.
The Liberal justices are, to be honest, disappointing at times. And the Conservative justices sometimes rule surprisingly well.
The view of this current court as a right wing reactionary steamroller, inspired in part by the overturning of Roe v Wade, is reductive.
So it was good to see Kevin nodding at some of this complexity in his earlier post. But then he writes this:
“The only two who dissented from the ruling were Alito, who's hopeless, and Gorsuch, who's becoming more Alito-like all the time.”
Just off the top of my head, I can think of three decisions that help establish Gorsuch as a Liberal (but not a Leftist) hero.
He wrote the decision honoring treaties made with Native Indians before statehood in Oklahoma.
He wrote the famous Bostock opinion extending civil rights to trans individuals.
And, my own favorite, he wrote the opinion defending free speech in the 303 creative case.
In this same case, the three “Liberal” judges came out as enemies of the free expression we enjoy in our open society. Essentially, they placed “social justice” higher than free speech, and I find that kind of Leftism to be terrifying.
And it was Gorsuch who wrote the lucid and eloquent decision explaining why freedom of speech necessitates putting up with, rather than outlawing, ideas we don’t like.
To be clear, I think the cake shop owner would have shown a commendable broad mindedness by agreeing to make wedding cakes for gay couples. But no one should be forced to engage in that kind of creative self-expression against their will.
And the coverage of this 303 case was confused. A lot of media outlets reported it erroneously as a setback for gay rights. Some reported it, more accurately, as a win for religious rights.
But it was basically a win for free speech, and that means that in the long run it was a win for all of us. Thanks Gorsuch!
Now I have no doubt that many commenters can point out terrible court decisions written or promoted by Gorsuch. I’m not disputing that possibility.
My point is simple: it’s complicated.
"defending free speech in the 303 creative case."
You meant enshrining homophobia I think.
@ColBatGuano:
“You meant enshrining homophobia I think”
God forbid that there should ever be a “Liberal” majority on the Supreme Court that upholds “anti-discrimination” laws which in fact discriminate.
Similar to so-called “anti-racist” racism, “anti-discrimination” discrimination is just the form of discrimination preferred by those with the power to implement it.
And that’s exactly what the “Liberal” justice sought to do in the 303 case: impose their preferred form of discrimination (against Christians) in the name of “anti-discrimination.”
No one who supports what the “Liberals” did in that 303 case has any business ever quoting Orwell against Republicans or Conservatives again.
Perhaps even more important is how badly the “Liberal” justices undermined Liberalism, the Left, Biden, and potentially the 2024 election.
The authoritarian pursuit of censorship through the “social justice” lens of DEI and “anti-discrimination” is the worst thing to happen to the Left in my lifetime. And the fact that “Liberal” Supreme Court justices joined the Leftist mob (in the 303 case) is deeply frightening.
The fact that these “Liberal” justices ultimately inspired me to write a long post praising Gorsuch goes to show just how badly the Left has misfired. And in doing so, they made Joe Biden’s reelection campaign that much harder.
Leo wrote: "“anti-discrimination” laws which in fact discriminate."
And this is why we shouldn't engage Leo. He's a blinkered right-wing ideologue with logorrhea.
Can Muslim taxi drivers refuse to transport passengers from airports who have liquor in their luggage?
Can a justice of the peace refuse to marry an interracial couple against God’s will?
Can the Vice President refuse to meet alone with a woman?
There are a billion bizarre religious prohibitions that would cripple modern commercial and political relations if held inviolate.
303 Creative? The woman who thought she might want to create wedding websites but never had?
And was only willing to do so if she could discriminate against others in a manner prohibited by law?
What about KKK Creative? You know, the person who had never created a wedding web site but was only willing to do so if they could discriminate against interracial couples because God prohibits race-mixing?
What about Blue Creative? The person who had never created a wedding web site but was only willing to do so if they could discriminate against Republicans because God hates Trump the Antichrist?
I see no problem with any of those.
So people should be compelled to express their artistic abilities under duress in the name of anti-homophobia?
Should a black painter be compelled to to paint a portrait of a man in his KKK robe?
Should a cake baker be forced to express their artistic abilities for an interracial, or Christian, wedding that violates the law of Allah?
Or is it ok for them to inform the couple that they will burn in hell?
No, of course they should not be compelled to do that.
What say you?