If you criticized President Trump for attacking Judge Robart in Seattle or AG Sessions for questioning the ruling from Judge Watson—a judge on an “island in the Pacific”—I hope your comments about Judge Kelly today are reasoned and, ideally, about the merits of the CFPB dispute.
-
-
No Chris, he is right. The law is the law..... Source: PHH v. CFPB (2016)pic.twitter.com/PQCTYQoxbq
-
Um, this has nothing to do with what he was discussing. This is: (1) a separate issue about the single-director agency structure of CFPB, and (2) from the vacated three-judge panel decision that is under en banc review.
-
He was arguing that the law Congress passed (Dodd-Frank) is clear about the order of succession and Trump was in violation. I was being snarky and pointing out that to date, the highest court the body that decides if the congress laws passes r constitutional, has ruled said law
-
(See point 2 of my response.)
-
Which we both know the whatever the circuit's decision will be, is going to be appealed to & ruled on by the Supreme Court. My overarching point is that there is a strong (and historically winning) legal argument against the constitutionality of the branch, and if it is legal
-
it exists as a function of the Executive overseeing powers, which is what is foolishly and for political gain, being argued today
-
I was childishly mocking all those who are dismissing the Trump appointed judge's ruling as a purely political move and not grounded in (arguably) strong stare decisis: Myers, Humphrey’s Executor, Free Enterprise Fund, NLRB v. Noel Canning
-
You were childishly mocking those who were childishly mocking, which was the entire critique in my initial tweet. ... In short, you’ve completely wasted my time here. Have a good night.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
True, but the cfpb law was written after the fvra, so wouldn't that mean it has priority? And it was my understanding that it was written that way in order to avoid exactly what's happening now. Honestly I think there should be a time limit to how long a
-
Temporary person can fill that seat. If you want to avoid the Senate confirmation process, you just post someone there "temporarily" and never nominate a candidate. It's cheating
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But there is NO vacancy to fill because the former director appointed the assistant director which is completely appropriate and allowed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.