Here is @marty_lederman's cogent response (via thread) to the OLC opinion:https://twitter.com/marty_lederman/status/934612345334194176 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Engel and Lederman both basically agree that this comes down to a question of whether the Dodd-Frank language that the deputy director "shall" serve as acting director makes (or can make) that the sole basis for filling a vacancy — eliminating the VRA (which Trump is using).
Show this thread -
Both of them point to the Senate Committee Report, so I uploaded it, highlighting the key portion here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4310462-Vacancies-Reform-Act-Senate-Committee-Report-1998.html#document/p20/a389651 …pic.twitter.com/bXIIZTge24
Show this thread -
Anyway, there's certainly more to come on this, but I was reading up tonight once I got home — so I figured I might as well share what I have!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So absurd. Dodd–Frank is clearly the controlling law in the event of a conflict. Pres. Obama signed Dodd–Frank into law on July 21, 2010, more a decade after the Vacancies Reform Act. (The Vacancies Reform Act was signed into law by Pres. Clinton on Oct. 21, 1998)
-
That’s... not how the law works... Most recently passed doesn’t just win by default
-
Derp, actually it does in this case, because Dodd Frank CREATED the CFPB, therefore that act has jurisdiction over the Bureau. Sessions is simply cherry picking an old law to please his boss. I’d listen to IL Steve, he’s an actual lawyer.https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/creatingthebureau/ …
-
I am also a lawyer, yay? The Vacancies Act specifically recognizes the ability of an express statutory provision providing an ALTERNATIVE path to naming acting officers (5 USC 3347). But it does not state that such provision controls/trumps/etc the express default of Prez picking
-
What cause is there for an ALTERNATIVE (all caps yo) path?
-
5 USC 3345, the Vacancies Act. Which, under 5 USC 3347 is general’s the exclusive method, though it permits to have statutes that provide other alternative path. I emphasized alternative because its important to remember that the CFBP statute provision doesn’t erase Vacancies Act
-
Generally*
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wow. DOJ is corrupt.
-
Tweet unavailable
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So bascailly Warren does not know how to interpret the laws she wrote that created this agency.
-
She does. That's why she wants this to go to the courts.
-
You read my mind! I was thinking that the tactic of throwing it to judge in hopes that she/he is sympathetic and that media will shape opinion is a common tactic.
#Fauxcahontas -
Well, there is a reasonable argument to be made for Dodd-Frank as the applicable law. Even if DOJ tries to argue otherwise, the judge could rule that Dodd-Frank is the prevailing law based on the intent in the creation of the CFPB.
-
Wouldn't the Vacancies Reform Act take precedence given that it was law in 1998. I don't think Dodd Frank amended or overrode that act.
-
That's what I am wondering. Warren helped to create the CFPB, and she thinks it will go to court. She mentioned as much in a tweet earlier.
-
Imagine in 2023 a Trump appointed CFPB head resigned the day before President Warren was going to fire him, and he appointed some flunky as his “deputy” to replace him.
-
You say that she isn't very smart, yet you are the one making confident statements absent any actual knowledge of the facts at hand.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.