# Supreme court upholds unorthodox funding for watchdog financial agency critics complain its an end run around congress

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [May 23, 2024, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946 "2024-05-23T06:12:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/1 "2024-05-23T06:12:38Z")

</div>

ok after the 2008 crisis, they made the dodd-frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which was passed by congress and signed President Obama signed into law

Now one of the things that was provided for in the law was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which is there to keep people from getting ripped off in loans and such

What the kerfuffle was over is to keep it pure and honest its funded by the Federal Reserve and not congressal appropriations like the FCC or the FDA and some of the predatory payday lenders who would be under the jurisdiction of the agency tried to get this loophole closed and ultimately lost

but the critics are worried that now its been legitimatized it will be used more often to get around Congress for good or bad…

Sorry for the site its the only one (it seems to be very libertarian )that’s mentioned it so far

> **[Supreme Court Delivers VICTORY for the ADMINISTRATIVE STATE With Surprise 7–2...](https://unitedliberty.com/supreme-court-delivers-victory-for-the-administrative-state-with-surprise-7-2-ruling/)**
>
> In a surprising turn of events, the U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a 7-2 decision that marks a significant victory for the administrative state. This ruling allows a federal agency to continue receiving its funding directly from the Federal...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/2 "2024-05-23T06:20:27Z")

</div>

What baffles me about this ruling is that _Clarence Fucking Thomas_, fascist sympathizer, delivered the majority opinion, and that he, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the liberals in upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/3 "2024-05-23T06:23:02Z")

</div>

It makes sense that Clarence Thomas would sign on, if you imagine that he sees it as weakening Congress and strengthening the unitary executive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/4 "2024-05-23T10:12:10Z")

</div>

Once in a great while rulings are made on the merits. Not on doctrinally-motivated predestination.

This may in fact be one of those cases.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/5 "2024-05-23T11:46:23Z")

</div>

Actually, most of ‘em. I read somewhere, probably on this board, that a large majority of SCOTUS decisions are uncontroversial 9-0, 8-1 decisions. Of course, they’re not the interesting ones that understandably get all the press.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/6 "2024-05-23T12:27:55Z")

</div>

Quite right, factually speaking.

I was playing the cynical card about the current iteration of Supremes. Who seem uniquely good at ideology, but that may just be recency bias on my part.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\
**Post date:** [May 23, 2024, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-unorthodox-funding-for-watchdog-financial-agency-critics-complain-its-an-end-run-around-congress/1001946/7 "2024-05-23T12:38:30Z")

</div>

There have been several news articles about this. No need to use that source. Here’s from NBC news:

> **[Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to consumer protection agency](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rebuffs-challenge-consumer-protection-agency-rcna135106)**
>
> The justices rejected a business-backed argument that could have hobbled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects people from unlawful financial services practices such as predatory lending.

The thing is, this happened about a week ago, so it’s now dropped off the front of major news organizations.
