SCOTUS could end financial protection as we know it

[MVelsor]

They were way off on that one. Turned out the "what's next" was just deranged men playing women's sports, using women's locker rooms, going to women's prisons, forcing their way into women's abuse shelters, taxpayer funded sex changes, shutting down businesses, 8 year olds stripping for gay men, chemical castration of young children, custody removal, and massive fines for "misgendering".

Excellent point.

The people in attendance at that dyke-owned Brooklyn bar (who didn't walk out) should've all been arrested. None of the other stuff really has anything to do... well, at the least isn't particularly desirable.

A lot of 'transwomen' invading female spaces identify as "lesbians" and want to fuck women. Those circus act "genderqueer" couples regularly featured in the Daily Mail where the guy thinks he's a girl and girl thinks she's a guy? That's in fact, a heterosexual couple.

When gay dudes oppose and physically disrupt taxpayer funded pedophile events in public spaces like "drag queen" story hour? They get virtually lynched by an instantaneous radical hate mob and then wind up dead the next day.

And there's this:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407518779139?journalCode=spra&

Virtually all heterosexuals excluded trans individuals from their dating pool: only 1.8% of straight women and 3.3% of straight men chose a trans person of either binary gender. But most non-heterosexuals weren’t open to dating a trans person either, only 11.5% of gay men were open to being trans-inclusive in their dating preferences.

And that, etc, etc.

 

[MVelsor]

You can blame the color of your shorts all you want, but I don’t see a bulge at all.

^^ Size Queen.

 

[MVelsor]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/the...r-to-upend-consumer-financial-protection.html

Can someone explain why on earth anyone would support making it easier to get away with financial con artiststy?

The Supreme Court is a corrupted institution

Our democracy is on a cliff

What does this have to with Trump? Is his administration taking sides in the lawsuit?

Well, I mean. As recently stated, a fully GOP-controlled America would be a place where the social safety net has been completely gutted, environmental protections made nonexistent, abortion banned, consensual same-sex relations recriminalized and Brazil 2.0 economic inequality brought to fruition. Oh yeah, third world fuckery here we come! It's hardly even hyperbole either, just stay tuned.

The Republican Party’s takeover of the federal judiciary is almost complete.

The strategy, executed to near-perfection by Senate Republicans Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, was simple: Stall as many nominees chosen by President Barack Obama as possible. Then, by either disregarding or outright changing the Senate rules governing the confirmation process, rush through President Donald Trump’s nominees.

So far, that strategy has worked. Trump has already appointed two Supreme Court justices—though one of those appointments was rightfully Obama’s—along with a fifth of the sitting circuit court of appeals judges. Now, Republicans have set their sights on the district courts. There are more than 100 vacancies left, and monied interests are champing at the bit to handpick Trump’s nominations to fill them.

At the beginning of the month, McConnell invoked the “nuclear option” to permanently limit the amount of time senators can debate most nominees from 30 hours to just two. The change doesn’t apply to Supreme Court nominees or circuit court nominees but will allow Republicans to advance district court nominees at lightning speed. This latest move by McConnell all but ensures that judges hostile to causes like voting rights, reproductive rights, and LGBT equality will help shape the law around those issues.

Trump commented on the phenomenon, seemingly confused as to how he got so lucky. “When I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren’t appointed. I don’t know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. Why the hell did he leave that?" Trump asked. "It was like the gift from heaven. We were left judges."

It wasn’t a gift from heaven, however. It was a gift from McConnell and Grassley—who, after Republicans wrestled control of the Senate from Democrats in 2014, immediately ground to a halt Obama’s efforts to confirm judicial nominees to make way for the next Republican president. That president turned out to be Trump.

Trump has appointed around a third of the judges on the conservative Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits. He’s on the verge of flipping the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit. The Third and 11th Circuits were both majority-Democrat until Trump. Now the majority of the judges on the Third Circuit are Republican; the Eleventh Circuit is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

The problem isn’t just that Trump is appointing conservative judges. It’s that he’s appointing conservative judges who are handpicked and vetted by the Federalist Society, which Meagan Hatcher-Mays describes as “a shadowy conservative group that mobilized in the years after the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Roe v. Wade.”

“The organization grooms law students to become hardliner anti-choice judges who oppose reproductive rights and the social safety net but support wholesale deregulation and unfettered personhood rights for corporations,” Hatcher-Mays continues. “These are not neutral judges who ‘follow the law’ or umpires who call ‘balls and strikes,’ as they frequently claim in their confirmation hearings. They are partisan hacks who are hand-selected by billionaires to stand in the way of progress.”

 

[xcvbn]

Well, I mean. As recently stated, a fully GOP-controlled America would be a place where the social safety net has been completely gutted, environmental protections made nonexistent, abortion banned, consensual same-sex relations recriminalized and Brazil 2.0 economic inequality brought to fruition. Oh yeah, third world fuckery here we come! It's hardly even hyperbole either, just stay tuned.

The Republican Party’s takeover of the federal judiciary is almost complete.

The strategy, executed to near-perfection by Senate Republicans Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, was simple: Stall as many nominees chosen by President Barack Obama as possible. Then, by either disregarding or outright changing the Senate rules governing the confirmation process, rush through President Donald Trump’s nominees.

So far, that strategy has worked. Trump has already appointed two Supreme Court justices—though one of those appointments was rightfully Obama’s—along with a fifth of the sitting circuit court of appeals judges. Now, Republicans have set their sights on the district courts. There are more than 100 vacancies left, and monied interests are champing at the bit to handpick Trump’s nominations to fill them.

At the beginning of the month, McConnell invoked the “nuclear option” to permanently limit the amount of time senators can debate most nominees from 30 hours to just two. The change doesn’t apply to Supreme Court nominees or circuit court nominees but will allow Republicans to advance district court nominees at lightning speed. This latest move by McConnell all but ensures that judges hostile to causes like voting rights, reproductive rights, and LGBT equality will help shape the law around those issues.

Trump commented on the phenomenon, seemingly confused as to how he got so lucky. “When I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren’t appointed. I don’t know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. Why the hell did he leave that?" Trump asked. "It was like the gift from heaven. We were left judges."

It wasn’t a gift from heaven, however. It was a gift from McConnell and Grassley—who, after Republicans wrestled control of the Senate from Democrats in 2014, immediately ground to a halt Obama’s efforts to confirm judicial nominees to make way for the next Republican president. That president turned out to be Trump.

Trump has appointed around a third of the judges on the conservative Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits. He’s on the verge of flipping the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit. The Third and 11th Circuits were both majority-Democrat until Trump. Now the majority of the judges on the Third Circuit are Republican; the Eleventh Circuit is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

The problem isn’t just that Trump is appointing conservative judges. It’s that he’s appointing conservative judges who are handpicked and vetted by the Federalist Society, which Meagan Hatcher-Mays describes as “a shadowy conservative group that mobilized in the years after the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Roe v. Wade.”

“The organization grooms law students to become hardliner anti-choice judges who oppose reproductive rights and the social safety net but support wholesale deregulation and unfettered personhood rights for corporations,” Hatcher-Mays continues. “These are not neutral judges who ‘follow the law’ or umpires who call ‘balls and strikes,’ as they frequently claim in their confirmation hearings. They are partisan hacks who are hand-selected by billionaires to stand in the way of progress.”

And while centrists or establishment liberals like to say “we all want the same things” the problem is that their solution to achieving these same things is to bleed democracy and play some sort of ineffectual “long con” that provides only glimmers of hope for halting this right wing conservative radicalization of America, not any actual substantive victories. It’s like they believe that taking an inch while give a thousand miles is an effective solution.

We are bordering on theocracy in America and it should terrify us. The time for complacency and hopes and wishes is over. We must be as militant as the opposition and fight.

 

[hillelslovak87]

"Must veer off again".

Reread this thread, stupid. You brought up gays, that was shot down, you brought up abortion, that was shot down, you thought I was "size 44", that was shot down. This thread is only 2 pages and you've veered off like 5 times whenever you look llke an idiot, and now it's "posting pics is gay" after you specifically asked for them. By all means, keep embarrassing yourself.

You outed yourself with that grindr shit, maaaaan. That "I'm so awesome and better!!" fart sniffing as well.........

 

[MVelsor]

And while centrists or establishment liberals like to say “we all want the same things” the problem is that their solution to achieving these same things is to bleed democracy and play some sort of ineffectual “long con” that provides only glimmers of hope for halting this right wing conservative radicalization of America, not any actual substantive victories. It’s like they believe that taking an inch while give a thousand miles is an effective solution.

We are bordering on theocracy in America and it should terrify us. The time for complacency and hopes and wishes is over. We must be as militant as the opposition and fight.

I personally have buffer money but it isn't that long, nor nearly enough for me to think the direction this country is heading socioeconomically can lead to anything short of disaster. The slide and widening gaps just continue plowing forward (backwards) all the while the populace at large is fed perpetual distraction fodder.

The religious right was hardly even intertwined with politics prior to the mid-1970s. The country was structured the way it was socially prior to because that was just mainstream society in general. Their involvement was mostly reactionary to the civil rights, gay liberation and pro-choice movements.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.

In January 2019, The Washington Post wrote that the Federalist Society had reached an "unprecedented peak of power and influence." Of the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, five (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito) are current or former members of the organization. Politico Magazine wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."

According to William & Mary Law School professor Neil Devins and Ohio State University professor Lawrence Baum, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush "aimed to nominate conservative judges, and membership in the Federalist Society was a proxy for adherence to conservative ideology." The Federalist Society has played a key role in suggesting judicial nominees to President Donald Trump; it vetted President Trump's list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees and, as of January 2019, 25 out of 30 of President Trump's appellate court nominees were current or former members of the society.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is an American conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of advocating, training, and funding on the issues of "religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage and family." ADF is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and runs the Center for Academic Freedom.

Because of its budget, caseload, and network of allied attorneys, ADF is seen as the most organized and influential Christian legal interest group in the country, and has been described as "the 800-pound gorilla of the Christian right". It has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court and won all of them.

ADF's formal support for anti-sodomy laws dates to at least 2003, before the Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. ADF filed an amicus brief in the case, defending state laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity and spent nearly 30 pages arguing in favor of upholding it. In 2011, ADF senior counsel Kevin Theriot wrote that "a legal right to engage in homosexual behavior comes at the cost of religious freedom."

 

[MVelsor]

You outed yourself with that grindr shit, maaaaan.

NTTAWWT...? :-/

To be fair, I don't recall Nostra saying anything on here that referred to gay people as "sub-human" or speaking fondly of the days when couples were physically assaulted and put in wheelchairs for holding hands. That was actually the OP. <45>

 

[Prokofievian]

The people in attendance at that dyke-owned Brooklyn bar (who didn't walk out) should've all been arrested. None of the other stuff really has anything to do... well, at the least isn't particularly desirable.

A lot of 'transwomen' invading female spaces identify as "lesbians" and want to fuck women. Those circus act "genderqueer" couples regularly featured in the Daily Mail where the guy thinks he's a girl and girl thinks she's a guy? That's in fact, a heterosexual couple.

When gay dudes oppose and physically disrupt taxpayer funded pedophile events in public spaces like "drag queen" story hour? They get virtually lynched by an instantaneous radical hate mob and then wind up dead the next day.

And there's this:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407518779139?journalCode=spra&

Virtually all heterosexuals excluded trans individuals from their dating pool: only 1.8% of straight women and 3.3% of straight men chose a trans person of either binary gender. But most non-heterosexuals weren’t open to dating a trans person either, only 11.5% of gay men were open to being trans-inclusive in their dating preferences.

And that, etc, etc.

*Dijk.

Or Ruprecht will punish you.

 

[MVelsor]

*Dijk.

Or Ruprecht will punish you.

Qué quieres decir con esto?

Ruprecht

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Not getting scammed is a matter of personal responsibility.

Like my buddy's eighty year old mother...

 

[MVelsor]

You heard of fudge packing?

A little hygiene with a high fiber diet works wonders.

 

[Cajun]

@Trotsky

Tired- Refusing to confirm a liberal to oversee the CFPB

Wired- Ruling that the existence of the CFBP is unconstitutional

I haven't read the ins and outs, but it hasn't even been heard or voted on yet?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

It creates dependency on government. People who are poor, and dependent on resources from the government, are easy to control.

But people need the government to enforce certain rights to ensure they have the opportunity to flourish. The right to not be swindled is as basic as any other property right.

 

[MVelsor]

@Prokofievian

I chalk it up to homophobic tyranny amongst the Sherdog staff. I'm a vibrant diversity bringer in a world of barbaric philistines on here. Any decent human being who supports civil rights should acknowledge that it's cute and just like, be supportive.

Lesbianist, there was a single paragraph insta-burial ITT before an argument could even be started. That's already an outsized, disproportionate impact on civilization and culture -- on account of a mere five cocksuckers or so. GTFO. Granting gays equality is like a fucking handicap for straight people.

I haven't read the ins and outs, but it hasn't even been heard or voted on yet?

It's a fairly sure thing if you've been following what's been going on with the judiciary and there's lots of info in here. Definitely be a really interesting acid test of sorts. At what point does Clarence Thomas take his rightful place as the greatest Justice to have ever served on the Supreme Court in your opinion, @Trotsky?

 

[Mr Holmes]

Well, I mean. As recently stated, a fully GOP-controlled America would be a place where the social safety net has been completely gutted, environmental protections made nonexistent, abortion banned, consensual same-sex relations recriminalized and Brazil 2.0 economic inequality brought to fruition. Oh yeah, third world fuckery here we come! It's hardly even hyperbole either, just stay tuned.

The Republican Party’s takeover of the federal judiciary is almost complete.

The strategy, executed to near-perfection by Senate Republicans Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, was simple: Stall as many nominees chosen by President Barack Obama as possible. Then, by either disregarding or outright changing the Senate rules governing the confirmation process, rush through President Donald Trump’s nominees.

So far, that strategy has worked. Trump has already appointed two Supreme Court justices—though one of those appointments was rightfully Obama’s—along with a fifth of the sitting circuit court of appeals judges. Now, Republicans have set their sights on the district courts. There are more than 100 vacancies left, and monied interests are champing at the bit to handpick Trump’s nominations to fill them.

At the beginning of the month, McConnell invoked the “nuclear option” to permanently limit the amount of time senators can debate most nominees from 30 hours to just two. The change doesn’t apply to Supreme Court nominees or circuit court nominees but will allow Republicans to advance district court nominees at lightning speed. This latest move by McConnell all but ensures that judges hostile to causes like voting rights, reproductive rights, and LGBT equality will help shape the law around those issues.

Trump commented on the phenomenon, seemingly confused as to how he got so lucky. “When I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren’t appointed. I don’t know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. Why the hell did he leave that?" Trump asked. "It was like the gift from heaven. We were left judges."

It wasn’t a gift from heaven, however. It was a gift from McConnell and Grassley—who, after Republicans wrestled control of the Senate from Democrats in 2014, immediately ground to a halt Obama’s efforts to confirm judicial nominees to make way for the next Republican president. That president turned out to be Trump.

Trump has appointed around a third of the judges on the conservative Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits. He’s on the verge of flipping the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit. The Third and 11th Circuits were both majority-Democrat until Trump. Now the majority of the judges on the Third Circuit are Republican; the Eleventh Circuit is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

The problem isn’t just that Trump is appointing conservative judges. It’s that he’s appointing conservative judges who are handpicked and vetted by the Federalist Society, which Meagan Hatcher-Mays describes as “a shadowy conservative group that mobilized in the years after the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Roe v. Wade.”

“The organization grooms law students to become hardliner anti-choice judges who oppose reproductive rights and the social safety net but support wholesale deregulation and unfettered personhood rights for corporations,” Hatcher-Mays continues. “These are not neutral judges who ‘follow the law’ or umpires who call ‘balls and strikes,’ as they frequently claim in their confirmation hearings. They are partisan hacks who are hand-selected by billionaires to stand in the way of progress.”

I found the source of your article at https://rewire.news/. The top 2 links for the nav menu are "abortion" and "contraception". Pretty much what I expected from an article that dings republicans for the nuclear option and having partisan judges.

 

[panamaican]

It's interesting. So the argument is that Congress can't create an agency and directorship where only the President can remove the director? I don't think that's a Constitutional problem. The POTUS appoints, the Senate confirms. How is that different from a judge or a Cabinet level officer? The part about allowing the states to enforce federal financial law is a direct parallel to the immigration argument. The fed grants the states the ability to enforce federal law but doesn't force them to do it, leaving the decision up to the individual states to participate or not.

I would be surprised if SCOTUS invalidates the CFPB. But if they did, I'd love to see the reasoning for restricting Congress's ability this way.

It is of course pretty shitty that this company wants to wipe out this authority agency so that we can return to 18 different agencies floundering in the dark.

 

[panamaican]

I found the source of your article at https://rewire.news/. The top 2 links for the nav menu are "abortion" and "contraception". Pretty much what I expected from an article that dings republicans for the nuclear option and having partisan judges.

However, that doesn't make it untrue. We've known this to be McConnell's goal going back half a decade at this point, to before Trump was even on the horizon. Controlling the judiciary has been a GOP target for quite a while and McConnell hit on the strategy to make it happen.

 

[Mr Holmes]

However, that doesn't make it untrue. We've known this to be McConnell's goal going back half a decade at this point, to before Trump was even on the horizon. Controlling the judiciary has been a GOP target for quite a while and McConnell hit on the strategy to make it happen.

My point is Democrats were the first to use the nuclear option and there are partisan hack judges on both sides. That whole article reads like biased dribble. Republicans didn't "wrestle" away control. The people put them in power because we were tired of Obama's overreach.

As it turns out, the results of elections have consequences. These scenarios should have been considered before Democrats put the personification of rot as their nominee.

 

[MVelsor]

I found the source of your article at https://rewire.news/. The top 2 links for the nav menu are "abortion" and "contraception". Pretty much what I expected from an article that dings republicans for the nuclear option and having partisan judges.

It wasn't actually meant to be secretive and that's not the first time I've posted it (with the link). There's also some goofy "white male" shit in the very same article IIRC, so definitely biased but the core point are the happenings as Pan stated and the FedSoc stuff is legit. I think Mitch is brilliant, dude. One of the slimiest fucks whoever looked to rape fuck America, but ruthlessly efficient at what he does nonetheless.

 

[Philo-Publius]

But people need the government to enforce certain rights to ensure they have the opportunity to flourish. The right to not be swindled is as basic as any other property right.

That I can completely agree with. I was making a snarky suggestion that the people who would oppose the CFPB though might be inclined to do so because they want people to be more dependent on the government for resources. I was just taking a side swipe at Socialism.