This article, “The Supreme Court Is Poised to Strike Down a Major Obama-Era Agency”, does a pretty good job of outlining the constitutional case against the CFPB:
Does this give any Warren fans here pause / cause for concern, either due to the constitutional implications or her electoral prospects? I imagine that an adverse (for the CFPB) ruling is going to be used as fodder in campaign commercials against Warren.
I support the mission of the CFPB, but I generally agree that these are concerning structural issues.
That’s “consumer finance protection bureau”, for anyone who doesn’t have all of the governmental acronyms memorized.
No.
First, tell me why you consider to be her “signature achievement,” then we can say whether that achievement was unconstitutional.
Recognize that Warren recommended that the government create a Consumer Financial Protection Board, which would have been a bipartisan board with multiple Senate-confirmed members who would have jointly exercised authority. Warren was a citizen who advocated for such an agency to be created and she failed in this objective because the agency that Congress created did not have this structure. Since this failure was obviously not her “signature achievement,” I’d like to know what you are referring to in your heading before I answer.
That the previous decisions will be overturned is a stretch, at best.
Even Kavanaugh argues that the CFPB itself is not unconstitutional, only the “for cause” protection for the director. And even that has repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past, notably when FDR fired a FTC commissioner under the same protection.
Seems like a stupid quibble to me:
(emphasis mine)
Also, from the NYT - Joe Biden Stresses His Part in Elizabeth Warren’s Signature Accomplishment
Mother Jones - Biden Snaps At Warren: My Help Secured Your Signature Legislative Achievement
You started this thread to quibble. I want to make sure I know what we are quibbling about. Also, I asked you why you considered this her signature achievement. You linked to other people rather than explaining yourself. That doesn’t answer my question.
In my opinion, her signature achievement thus far has been starting up the CFPB as its interim head. She exercised her duties commendably. She did so in a role where she served at the President’s pleasure, so the constitutional concerns raised by the lawsuit concerning the CFPB’s structure were not implicated by her service in that role. So the answer to your question is “no,” there is nothing unconstitutional about her signature achievement.
If you are going to suggest that any purported constitutional defect in the agency’s structure is due to a fault in her recommendations, you are ignorant of what she recommended.
Then you should have read the title. It’s made clear there.
I linked to other people to show that it’s a common perception. I personally consider it her signature achievement because I don’t think she’s accomplished anything else worth the label in her whole life. She, no shit, lists the CFPB as one of her children on Twitter:
You’ve alluded to this twice and haven’t provided a source either time. Do you have a cite for Elizabeth Warren’s recommendation “that the government create a Consumer Financial Protection Board, which would have been a bipartisan board with multiple Senate-confirmed members who would have jointly exercised authority”?
Let’s remember FDR proposed many programs that were later determined to be unconstitutional. That’s what the courts are for, to help us figure out what can and cannot be done consistent with the Constitution. As far as I know, there was no dishonesty or asking for foreign assistance. Warren is not on my short list for the nomination, but even if she was, her involvement with this agency seems like a good accomplishment, even if the Court later strikes it down. There’s no scandal here.
I don’t have the time or interest to be your researcher. Can you support the claim that the constitutionalyl suspect structure of the CFPB is Warren’s greatest legislative accomplishment? Please note that she was not a legislator when the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted.
We need a consumer finance prevention board.
That is her signature issue.
Ok, what do you think is Warren’s signature achievement?
I don’t believe that is relevant to Mr. Ditka’s OP.
Neither do I but, boy oh boy, does Tired and Cranky ever think it is.
Nope. My opinion of Sen. Warren’s legislative accomplishments are completely irrelevant. I am asking about HurricanDitka’s opinions because it is necessary to understand his ambiguous, poorly defined question. We can’t begin to answer the OP until HurricanDitka explains his question clearly.
I’m sorry but it is you in the poorly defined category. Ditka’s question is quite clear and you have latched on to his description as a “signature achievement” as if it matters. The CFBP is a major part of Warren’s rise to prominence and you are making inane nitpicks.
Actually, after thinking about this for a bit, if the Supreme Court eliminated an agency designed to keep the billionaires who run banks from taking homes away from struggling Americans because of fraudulent mortgages, that would be a literal gift to Warren’s campaign.
I’m not particularly a fan of Warren, but you’re getting this totally wrong. This could win her the election.
The phrase "Warren’s signature achievement’ is part of HD’s OP. That makes his definition, what he thinks it means, relevant from square one, before anyone including Tired and Cranky can respond on point.
No, it is not relevant because everyone here knows that it is an extremely important part of her rise in the Dem party. Whether it is “signature” or not is ridiculous pedantry.