Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A U.S. District Court judge in Washington handed a big victory to President Donald Trump, ruling in favor of the administration in its bid to install White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Judge Timothy Kelly denied a request by Leandra English, who was named last week as acting director by outgoing CFPB chief Richard Cordray, for a temporary restraining order to block Mulvaney from taking the post.
Kelly said there was not a substantial likelihood that the case would succeed on its merits.
If you actually read the CFPB law, it states that the deputy director shall serve as acting director when the director is absent or unavailable. When a director resigns, s/he is NOT merely absent or unavailable; that implies that the director will return at some point to resume his/her responsibilities from the acting director. No, when the director resigns, the position becomes VACANT, thereby allowing POTUS to name an interim leader in accordance with the federal vacancy act. Note, even if this was an an absence or unavailability for the sake of the CFPB, the vacancy act would still trump. This is a point where even lawyers appointed by Obama (the CFPB general counsel) and Trump (the White House general counsel) agree on.
THIS more than any other reason is why I voted for Donald J. Trump. The courts are too important to be left to the administration by leftist loons.
Interesting. Its a bit more complex then the OP indicates though. Shrug. Im not going to cheer on the idea of the person running that being so anti-consumer, but for now thats how it is.
Not sure it was all the liberals pulling for this Leandra English to be able to keep the job. Of course a departing employee can't name a successor --that's just crazy.
Not sure how Trump changed the court decision -- the implication that if there was a liberal in office the courts wouldn't have made the same decision suggests you believe that the courts are easily swayed by the party in power.
This is not breaking news as the CFPB attorney indicated this morning that Mulvaney should take the seat. It’s not a big deal either way but the replacement should be approved by congress, the intention was independence.
There are more important issues down the road, I hope Mulvaney does a better job on this than tax reform and the ACA replacement. He doesn’t appear to be qualified.
Not sure it was all the liberals pulling for this Leandra English to be able to keep the job. Of course a departing employee can't name a successor --that's just crazy.
Not sure how Trump changed the court decision -- the implication that if there was a liberal in office the courts wouldn't have made the same decision suggests you believe that the courts are easily swayed by the party in power.
When you look at the loony decisions handed down by Obama and Clinton judges on the travel ban (which were all slapped down by the SCOTUS for the most part . . . yet these judges STILL pushed back), its hard to come to any other conclusion.
Having written all of that, you're absolutely right. No, a departing employee cannot name a success under the CFPB Act. I hope that English is fired for insurbordination.
This is not breaking news as the CFPB attorney indicated this morning that Mulvaney should take the seat. It’s not a big deal either way but the replacement should be approved by congress, the intention was independence.
Why do you think Trump will ever name a replacement? He and Mulvaney want the thing destroyed. What better way?
Interesting. Its a bit more complex then the OP indicates though. Shrug. Im not going to cheer on the idea of the person running that being so anti-consumer, but for now thats how it is.
The thing is that its really not, though. This really is an open and shut case, no matter how Pelosi and Schumer want to make people believe otherwise.
Why do you think Trump will ever name a replacement? He and Mulvaney want the thing destroyed. What better way?
They'll name a successor, but will likely wait as long as they can before doing so. This way, the successor will be serving well into whoever win's in 2020's term, whether that's Trump (as I expect it to be) or someone else.
When do the courts start charging the people who bring these frivolous lawsuits with contempt of court for wasting the court's time??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
