News Focus
News Focus
icon url

kthomp19

06/29/20 2:10 PM

#617547 RE: Barron4664 #617544

The rest of Dodd Frank can exist whether or not there is a CFPB. The severabilty doctrin in this case can be used to get rid of CFPB even if there wasn’t a clause because the rest of Dodd Frank doesn’t need the CFPB. Its not integral.



This only proves my point. If the Supreme Court is willing to sever a small part of a portion of the Dodd-Frank Act (the one covering the CFPB) while leaving the rest of that portion intact, even though they could have nuked the CFPB entirely without killing all of Dodd-Frank, it stands to reason that they will do the same with HERA when there is no larger statute to consider.

And I already showed you the part of the ruling saying they would have severed the removal clause even if Dodd-Frank didn't have a severability clause. HERA's lack of a severability clause has been shown to be a nothingburger.

An independent FHFA is central to HERA both as a regulatory agency and as a conservator or receiver.



Today's ruling said on page 35:

Given these consequences, it is far from evident that Congress would have preferred no CFPB to a CFPB led by a Director removable at will by the President.



So again, your argument is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court.

The Court will need to decide whether the rest of the statute can stand as written without an independent FHFA.



Striking down anything more than HERA's director removal clause would require completely going against the precedent they set today. That's a very long shot.

If it can they will write a legal opinion as to why.



They already did. I even quoted the relevant sections of it for you, but you can read it yourself.

If they don’t take it up then I imagine that new lawsuits can be filed challenging any number of past actions as done by an unconstitutional FHFA.



Good luck with that. The Supreme Court refusing to allow review of all past CFPB actions pretty much closes the door you claim is open.

Today's ruling is strong reinforcement for my argument that the only part of HERA in jeopardy of being changed is the director's removal clause.