Protection Bureau battle with Trump administration heads to court

[Objective Voice]

I heard about this over the weekend. Apparently the Dir., CFPB has resigned and has assigned an Acting Dir. in his place. However, Pres. Trump wants to appoint his own Director for the Bureau. That's fine, except Trump doesn't like the fact that an Acting Dir is currently serving.

According to media reports, Pres. Trump is attempting to use the Federal Vacancies Act to force a presidential appointment to the "vacant" position. Unfortunately, I don't think that will fly.

Not only must any presidential appointee go through the Senate confirmation process, according to the Dodd-Frank Act, section 336:

(a) In General.--Section 2 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1812) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ``Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision'' and inserting ``Director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau'';
(2) by amending subsection (d)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Acting officials may serve.--In the event of a vacancy in the office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the office
of Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and pending the appointment of a successor, or during the absence or
disability of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the acting Comptroller
of the Currency or the acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as the case may be, shall be a member of the
Board of Directors in the place of the Comptroller or Director.

So, under the law Pres. Trump can't assigned his own Acting Director to the CFPB. The outgoing Director can assigned an Acting Director until a permanent successor is confirmed. Moreover, the Federal Vacancies Act says this about filling vacancies at the executive level until a successor can be confirmed:

(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office—
(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346...

Trump doesn't like that, however. So, he's taking the CFPB to court.

The battle over leadership of a consumer watchdog [Consumer Federal Protection Bureau] created during the Obama administration is headed toward a federal court showdown Monday.

Leandra English, appointed as deputy director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last week in an 11th-hour move by Richard Cordray, the bureau's departing chief, filed a lawsuit late Sunday seeking to block President Trump from naming his own pick to head the agency on an interim basis.

Since the CFPB is an independent agency and the vacancy issue for this particular agency was addressed in the law 9Dodd-Frank) establishing the Bureau, I don't think the Trump Administration stands a chance at over-riding the Acting Director appointment.

Thoughts...

Note: There's something more sinister at hand here, folks. IMO, the CFPB has been a good thing for consumers ensuring they don't get ripped off by big corporations. It's my opinion that Pres. Trump wants to put his hand-picked successor in the Director's chair so that said individual can begin to undermine the agency sooner rather than later. I also think Trump may be alittle worried he may not get a Senate confirmation considering the 2018 mid-terms are coming up and Mueller's Russia investigation is just starting to heat up.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Mulvaney freezes out rival official at CFPB as battle for control heads to court

Mulvaney freezes out rival official at CFPB as battle for control heads to court | Fox News

As the case headed to court, both Mulvaney and English reported to work at the CFPB. But Mulvaney sought to leave no doubt who's in charge.

“t has come to my attention that Ms. English has reached out to many of you this morning via email in an attempt to exercise certain duties of the Acting Director. This is unfortunate but, in the atmosphere of the day, probably not unexpected,” he wrote.

“Please disregard any instructions you receive from Ms. English in her presumed capacity as Acting Director. ... If you receive additional communications from her today in any form, related in any way to the function of her actual or presumed official duties (i.e. not personal), please inform the General Counsel immediately.”

The White House also cited an opinion issued Saturday by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel saying it is within the president’s right to appoint an acting director. Steven A. Engel, newly confirmed head of the office, wrote that while the deputy director could serve as acting director under the statute, the president has the power to make appointments under the Vacancies Reform Act.


Off to court they go!

 

[FieldTheorist]

I heard about this over the weekend. Apparently the Dir., CFPB has resigned and has assigned an Acting Dir. in his place. However, Pres. Trump wants to appoint his own Director for the Bureau. That's fine, except Trump doesn't like the fact that an Acting Dir is currently serving.

According to media reports, Pres. Trump is attempting to use the Federal Vacancies Act to force a presidential appointment to the "vacant" position. Unfortunately, I don't think that will fly.

Not only must any presidential appointee go through the Senate confirmation process, according to the Dodd-Frank Act, section 336:



So, under the law Pres. Trump can't assigned his own Acting Director to the CFPB. The outgoing Director can assigned an Acting Director until a permanent successor is confirmed. Moreover, the Federal Vacancies Act says this about filling vacancies at the executive level until a successor can be confirmed:



Trump doesn't like that, however. So, he's taking the CFPB to court.



Since the CFPB is an independent agency and the vacancy issue for this particular agency was addressed in the law 9Dodd-Frank) establishing the Bureau, I don't think the Trump Administration stands a chance at over-riding the Acting Director appointment.

Thoughts...

Note: There's something more sinister at hand here, folks. IMO, the CFPB has been a good thing for consumers ensuring they don't get ripped off by big corporations. It's my opinion that Pres. Trump wants to put his hand-picked successor in the Director's chair so that said individual can begin to undermine the agency sooner rather than later. I also think Trump may be alittle worried he may not get a Senate confirmation considering the 2018 mid-terms are coming up and Mueller's Russia investigation is just starting to heat up.

Trump is a dangerous authoritarian who has no respect for the law. You don't get to break the rules explicitly laid out by the legislative branch because you want to undermine the entire Federal government. The fact that he keeps on disregarding the law and claiming stupid bull**** to try to strong-arm his way into doing what he wants will do permanent damage to the US. It sets a precedent, and one most Republicans don't want a Democrat to follow.

He needs to be impeached. We can't allow a leader to come even close to this level of disregard for rules. It'd be different if he actually had real majoritarian support around the US, had a high public approval rating, and a legislative branch that supported him and his agenda which he regularly went through. But he literally has none of these things. He's a rogue agent in the White House who in the best case possible for himself has sketchy connections to adversarial foreign nations. Impeach Trump, and if Pence starts pulling the same ****, impeach his ass, too.

 

[Saladin4]

This is all grandstanding by trump and his goons to impress his base of angry uneducated white men that doesn't even understand what the CFPB does...They hear Obama and start to slobber....Shout and scream

 

[Samhain]

The Federal Vacancy Reform Act has already been ruled on in the appellate courts(9th Circuit): it trumps(no pun intended) other rules.

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel already released their opinion on this matter referencing the precedent.

 

[humbolt]

Maybe this has something to do with the administration's dissatisfaction with CFPB.

Leandra English Taught By Liz Warren | The Daily Caller

 

[Mycroft]

The Federal Vacancy Reform Act has already been ruled on in the appellate courts(9th Circuit): it trumps(no pun intended) other rules.

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel already released their opinion on this matter referencing the precedent.

The CFPB's own legal office has sided with the President.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...h-trump-over-succession-sources-idUSKBN1DR05A

It will go to court because Leandra English has filed suit, but it doesn't look good for her. I'd say this is a done deal.

 

[apdst]

Trump is a dangerous authoritarian who has no respect for the law. You don't get to break the rules explicitly laid out by the legislative branch because you want to undermine the entire Federal government. The fact that he keeps on disregarding the law and claiming stupid bull**** to try to strong-arm his way into doing what he wants will do permanent damage to the US. It sets a precedent, and one most Republicans don't want a Democrat to follow.

He needs to be impeached. We can't allow a leader to come even close to this level of disregard for rules. It'd be different if he actually had real majoritarian support around the US, had a high public approval rating, and a legislative branch that supported him and his agenda which he regularly went through. But he literally has none of these things. He's a rogue agent in the White House who in the best case possible for himself has sketchy connections to adversarial foreign nations. Impeach Trump, and if Pence starts pulling the same ****, impeach his ass, too.

The president has constitutional authority to appoint whomever he chooses. The courts do not have the constitutional authority to tell him he can't. Courts also lack the constitutional authority to make appointments.

It's disconcerying to find out that there are members of the government who think they can sidestep The Constitution whenever it pleases them.

 

[FieldTheorist]

The president has constitutional authority to appoint whomever he chooses. The courts do not have the constitutional authority to tell him he can't. Courts also lack the constitutional authority to make appointments.

It's disconcerying to find out that there are members of the government who think they can sidestep The Constitution whenever it pleases them.

First off, no, that's just wrong. Your misunderstandings regarding the Constitution aren't even the arguments that Trump is making. Trump's lawyers are arguing that the Federal Vacancies Act --an act, voted upon by Congress, i.e. explicitly not a part of the Constitution-- gives him the authority. Secondly, Trump is wrong because he requires a Senate-approved interim director. Literally, this is the ruling that was given to Obama when he tried to do this. Trump cannot cram his guy into the CFPB anymore than Obama could.

Beyond this, I thought that the Fed was given control over the appointment of the director of the CFPB, but I don't remember the details of Dodd-Frank that discuss this.

 

[apdst]

Here's the law and it's pretty straight forward:

Article 2, Section 2:

"2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The president can't be forced by the courts to appoint anyone.

If he wants Mulvaney to be the acting honcho, then Mulvaney is the acting Honcho. English should be professional enough to know that and if she isn't, then she has no business working in our government.

 

[Saladin4]

Here's the law and it's pretty straight forward:

Article 2, Section 2:

"2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The president can't be forced by the courts to appoint anyone.

If he wants Mulvaney to be the acting honcho, then Mulvaney is the acting Honcho. English should be professional enough to know that and if she isn't, then she has no business working in our government.

Mulvaney is an arrogant prick grandstanding fo trump...A stooge of the Bankers and the elite

 

[apdst]

Mulvaney is an arrogant prick grandstanding fo trump...A stooge of the Bankers and the elite

Irrelevant.

 

[Saladin4]

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is it is going to the courts.....and yet Mulvaney is still an arrogant prick

 

[apdst]

What is relevant is it is going to the courts.....and yet Mulvaney is still an arrogant prick

No where in Article 2, Section 2 are the courts given authority over presidential appointments.

 

[Athanasius68]

First off, no, that's just wrong. Your misunderstandings regarding the Constitution aren't even the arguments that Trump is making. Trump's lawyers are arguing that the Federal Vacancies Act --an act, voted upon by Congress, i.e. explicitly not a part of the Constitution-- gives him the authority. Secondly, Trump is wrong because he requires a Senate-approved interim director. Literally, this is the ruling that was given to Obama when he tried to do this. Trump cannot cram his guy into the CFPB anymore than Obama could.

Beyond this, I thought that the Fed was given control over the appointment of the director of the CFPB, but I don't remember the details of Dodd-Frank that discuss this.

The CFPB is an agency in the executive department. Trump doesnt need to argue that executive power is vested in him; its states plainly it is so in the Constitution.

There is no requirement that the Senate approve an "interim" director. What, truly, would be the point?

There is a vacancy in an agency in the Executive dept. The president is using his authority in appointing a temporary director of that agency until Senate confirmation.
Why is this even subject to debate?

 

[apdst]

The CFPB is an agency in the executive department. Trump doesnt need to argue that executive power is vested in him; its states plainly it is so in the Constitution.

There is no requirement that the Senate approve an "interim" director. What, truly, would be the point?

There is a vacancy in an agency in the Executive dept. The president is using his authority in appointing a temporary director of that agency until Senate confirmation.
Why is this even subject to debate?

Because there people working in our government that are that stupid; along with their useful idiots.

 

[eohrnberger]

Seems like there needs to be some house cleaning at the CFPB anyway.

• CFPB undermine consumer choice
• The agency was then stacked with partisan ideologues and allowed to conceive its own arbitrary and wide-ranging rules to go after any practice it found “abusive,” “unfair,” or “deceptive.” The CFPB was sanctioned to “administer, enforce, and otherwise implement federal consumer financial laws, which includes the power to make rules, issue orders, and issue guidance” without any genuine due process. It could then mete out penalties of its choosing.
• In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the CFPB was unconstitutional because it gave unprecedented executive authority to a “single, unaccountable, unchecked Director.”
• As the Wall Street Journal notes, Democrats act as if the CFPB is its own branch of government. No, the CFPB doesn’t deserve “independence” from oversight any more than any other law enforcement agency.
• Many who defended Barack Obama’s unconstitutional use of recess appointments, which initially included Cordray, are now engaged in a staggering display of hypocrisy. David Axelrod, former senior advisor to Obama, called President Trump’s lawful appointment a “hostile takeover.” One of the most prevalent arguments against Mulvaney’s appointment, in fact, is the contention that Trump is likely to gut the agency.
  (Hypocrisy anyone?)
• EXCLUSIVE: Obama’s Top Campaign Ad Firm Got Nearly $60M In Federal Contracts
  GMMB received a total of $58.4 million in federal contracts from 2009 to 2017, according to USASpending, which tracks federal spending through contracts, grants, loans and other forms. GMMB’s annual revenue is an estimated $32.6 million, according to D&B Hoovers, a private business research and rating firm.
• Duffy has urged Trump to fire Cordray, and asked Congress to “rein in” the CFPB and hold it accountable. “The optics are extremely ugly when you have a major Democratic insider receiving a massive amount of taxpayer money,” Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, a conservative political activist group, told The DCNF. “I think any time a political consultant is getting paid on the political side and with our tax dollars, that deserve an enormous amount of scrutiny.”
  
  “There are many, many good reasons for President Trump to remove Richard Cordray,” he told TheDCNF. “This is another piece of evidence that there’s cause for removal.”
  (Corruption anyone?)

Frankly, I don't see why the CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve, rather than what any normal government agency is funded, namely through congress. If the CFPB wants to be a 'real' and legitimate government agency, it should be handled like one, and it should be required to act like one.

 

[Objective Voice]

The issue here is since the Dir., CFPB serves a 6-year term, who gets to pick the Acting Director until a new Director can be appointed (nominated) by the POTUS and and confirmed by the Senate?

Under Dodd-Frank, the Director can be appoint the Acting Director until a permanent replacement is confirmed. However, under FVA the appointing (nomination) process follows more closely with Art 2, Sect 2 of the Constitution.

It's not a matter of whether or not the President can make a nomination to the Senate for a successor to the CFPB. It's a question of who selects the Acting Director when a vacancy occurs?

This is a bit of a tricky one in the sense that while the CFPB is an independent agency, appointing a new Director still follows constitutional (and thus, legal) procedure. Yet, who appoints an interim (Acting) Director seems to be up in the air.

 

[Athanasius68]

The issue here is since the Dir., CFPB serves a 6-year term, who gets to pick the Acting Director until a new Director can be appointed (nominated) by the POTUS and and confirmed by the Senate?

Under Dodd-Frank, the Director can be appoint the Acting Director until a permanent replacement is confirmed. However, under FVA the appointing (nomination) process follows more closely with Art 2, Sect 2 of the Constitution.

It's not a matter of whether or not the President can make a nomination to the Senate for a successor to the CFPB. It's a question of who selects the Acting Director when a vacancy occurs?

This is a bit of a tricky one in the sense that while the CFPB is an independent agency, appointing a new Director still follows constitutional (and thus, legal) procedure. Yet, who appoints an interim (Acting) Director seems to be up in the air.

But why would a president lack the authority to appoint a temporary director, when he has the authority to appoint a permanent one?
The power for the former would seem to flow from the same source as the latter.

 

[danarhea]

The Federal Vacancy Reform Act has already been ruled on in the appellate courts(9th Circuit): it trumps(no pun intended) other rules.

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel already released their opinion on this matter referencing the precedent.

I need to ask a question here. Is the CFPB part of the President's cabinet, or was it a Congressional agency that was signed into law by the President? If not part of the cabinet, then separation of powers rules here, since this would be a congressionally created agency, not part of the executive branch of government, but a congressional oversight agency. Big difference. Congress set the rules here, which stated that the president could appoint someone to head the agency, with advice and consent of the Senate, but as part of the law, temporary vacancies can be filled by the agency itself. Since it is not part of the executive branch of government, then Trump must abide by the rules set forth by Congress. Looks to me like Trump wants the title of King Donald the First.

 

[apdst]

I need to ask a question here. Is the CFPB part of the President's cabinet, or was it a Congressional agency that was signed into law by the President? If not part of the cabinet, then separation of powers rules here, since this would be a congressionally created agency, not part of the executive branch of government, but a congressional oversight agency. Big difference. Congress set the rules here, which stated that the president could appoint someone to head the agency, with advice and consent of the Senate, but as part of the law, temporary vacancies can be filled by the agency itself. Since it is not part of the executive branch of government, then Trump must abide by the rules set forth by Congress. Looks to me like Trump wants the title of King Donald the First.

How did the past three directors get the position? If they werr nominated by the president, then there it is.

 

[apdst]

Well, how 'bout that...

On January 4, 2012, a White House communications director announced in a tweet that President Obama would be giving Cordray a recess appointment to the post, bypassing the Senate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cordray

 

[Hawkeye10]

How did the past three directors get the position? If they werr nominated by the president, then there it is.

BUT BUT BUT We need to save the place from this asshole TRUMP!!

Because we cant honor elections anymore, we aint that good.

WE USED TO BE BETTER

 

[apdst]

BUT BUT BUT We need to save the place from this asshole TRUMP!!

Because we cant honor elections anymore, we aint that good.

WE USED TO BE BETTER

As usual, the Democrats don't like the rules, so they want to circumvent the system. Then complain that President Trump wants to be king. :lamo

 

[braindrain]

Trump is a dangerous authoritarian who has no respect for the law. You don't get to break the rules explicitly laid out by the legislative branch because you want to undermine the entire Federal government. The fact that he keeps on disregarding the law and claiming stupid bull**** to try to strong-arm his way into doing what he wants will do permanent damage to the US. It sets a precedent, and one most Republicans don't want a Democrat to follow.

He needs to be impeached. We can't allow a leader to come even close to this level of disregard for rules. It'd be different if he actually had real majoritarian support around the US, had a high public approval rating, and a legislative branch that supported him and his agenda which he regularly went through. But he literally has none of these things. He's a rogue agent in the White House who in the best case possible for himself has sketchy connections to adversarial foreign nations. Impeach Trump, and if Pence starts pulling the same ****, impeach his ass, too.

Yes how dare the president exercise the authority given to him.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound with this nonsense.
Tell you what. How about you check out some of the appointments that Obama tried to appoint while skipping over the senate. Something tell me you where nowhere near as up in arms over that. Gee I wonder why. Couldn’t be because you are a partisan hack nowcould it.