1 Burst results for "Consumer Financial Protection Division"

"consumer financial protection division" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show

The Erick Erickson Show

07:09 min | 3 months ago

"consumer financial protection division" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show

"Conservative sued and said the very structure of this board makes it unconstitutional that the president is the executive. All Power of the executive branch of government flows from the president. You hear this talked about sometimes is the unitary executive under the the ideals of the founders you had congress and you had a president and under the president there were other people in those people's power flowed from the president. Those people cannot exercise power unless the president himself had power the Consumer Financial Protection Division was a board was put into the executive branch of government. That's where the administrative agency lies. Congress has created a number of administrative agencies and then made it. It very hard for the president wants. He picks the person in charge to get rid of that person and yesterday. The Supreme Court said No. All Power Executive branch flows from the president and the president can fire anyone who's not exercising his power, so the PB structure was bad. They're not going to rule the entire institution unconstitutional as they rarely do, but the whole structure the president gets to hire and fire. The president appoints the Senate confirms, and then the president can fire. It will just like any other appointee. That's actually a huge decision for conservatives that will benefit government long-term in the ability of conservatives to restrain the bureaucratic state. No one's paying attention to that one. They're paid into the abortion decision. And they're scratching their head because Roberts for years ago. Rule that the very law or or in a descent, said the very law that score throw. Yesterday was fine and yesterday. Robert says well it's it's the court shouldn't be doing this because started to sizes I'm GonNa? Let them. What's going on here? It is John Roberts exerting the independence of the judiciary now this is not a defense. Please don't hear me as defending John Roberts. He got it wrong yesterday, but I'm trying to explain to you. What's happening? Look at the last several cases that have come up a go back two years ago to the census case John. Roberts clearly has had enough of the trump administration. It doesn't trust them. In the census case these Commerce Department at the last minute decided to add a question on whether or not someone in your household has citizens. And it went to the Supreme Court John Roberts's. This is a perfectly permissible question asking the census, but you can't ask it and the reason you can't ask. It is because you wait until the last minute you didn't allow public review and the you had multiple members of the administration offer competing reasons that couldn't reconcile with each other as to why you're asking, and that's true. You had multiple members Wilbur Ross the secretary of commerce, explaining why they wanted to add the census question, and all three explanations not only differed, but were in contradiction to each other. And to Robert, said the questions fine. You just can't do it in this way. Here's if you want to do this in the future. Here's what you can do if you want to roll something back from the last administration. Here's what you need to do so fast forward to the dock as two weeks ago. What happened with the trump administration? They did not follow what John Roberts said doing the census case they ran it through. And then you had Multiple Department of Homeland Security a Department of Homeland Security. Officials testify as to why they decided Rollback Dacca. And each of them disagreed in their explanation as to why they were doing. So Roberts writing his Dacca decision two weeks ago, says hey. Did you read what I said? This is perfectly legitimate for you to do, but you gotTA. Follow this procedure. which they chose not to do. And so he didn't let them do it. He's over Donald Trump. This is all about Robert's not only. Is, the invisible court or something else he's doing here to. Roberts is beginning to believe based on his writings. Roberts is the restraint in chief. He is restraining. The popular sentiment. Among the president right now. When Joe Biden becomes president. Democrats should be worried about John Roberts. With massive government programs coming environmental regulations coming Roberts's probably going to restrain them as well. He will not be consistent in his jurisprudence. He'll be consistent in his restraint, but then look at the gay, rights decision. So I in in the decision yesterday on abortion, Robert says something that essentially that, if let if the legislature puts undue obstacles between you and a constitutional right, courts can act, and I read that immediately thought Whoa. This laying groundwork for second amendment cases. Now look at the gay rights case from two weeks ago, that gorsuch authored. Here's the have what operates on the Supreme Court. If the chief justice is in the majority. He gets to direct. Who writes the opinion? If he's not in the majority, the ranking justice in the majority gets to direct who writes the opinion, so if Roberts had not been in the majority in that case Ruth Bader Ginsburg have directed someone right the opinion. So Robertson. Gorsuch suddenly find themselves in the majority. Doing what was going to happen anyway. Let's be honest here. the Democrats probably are GonNA, take the Senate in the White House in November they see the writing on the wall. It's not guaranteed. The polling can still change, but if you're looking at the landscape of American politics right now unless you're a true trump partisan, your thing and this thing could be up in it in November the Democrats to do this anyway, so. So, let's do it ourselves and we're going to write the parameters by which it can be done, so we take the issue off the table for Congress, Congress doesn't have to act. They're going to do it the way we want them to do it and we're going to start dropping suggestions that are favorable to religious liberty. Now some people have read the decisions that Oh no. This could be bad for religious liberty. I don't think it is a religious liberty case coming up. Now if the religious liberty case this coming up the Catholic charities, case versus Philadelphia comes up and the court throws out the Calix than than my whole theory screwed up and sure enough. We got a bunch of liberals on the Supreme Court. But I just think Robert's in particular. Is, trying to restrain this president. is done with his president doesn't trust. This president doesn't trust is legal team has seen them come up with multiple competing conflicting explanations for the things they want to do. He's told them all know he's restrained them. And I think he'll do that to the Biden prisons well, does it mean? Does it mean he's? He's part of the conservative movement, but I don't think he suddenly of the left I think Roberts is the chief justice of the United States, and he's trying to protect the court at a time. The Republicans claim to own it and the Democrats claim they're gonNA. Pack it. They put him in a position where he thinks he had to do this rightly or wrongly. He thinks he had to do this. We'll see what happens with religious liberty case, it's something he has long cared about Willie, abandoned that as well I don't think he will. I. Don't I suspect we'll see a majority. For Catholic charities coming up. I suspect we'll see a majority for little sisters of the poor coming up. It's going to be very interesting though in the next couple of weeks to see what the Supreme Court rules their big opinions that they should be rolling them out. this week..

John Roberts president Supreme Court Robert executive congress Joe Biden Donald Trump Senate Commerce Department Wilbur Ross Consumer Financial Protection Ruth Bader Ginsburg United States Gorsuch TA Department of Homeland Securit Willie