Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunSeeker

(58,283 posts)
41. No, it appears you are missing the point. What part of "may" do you not understand?
Wed Nov 29, 2017, 04:20 PM
Nov 2017

The NLRA gives the President an optional route to fill a vacancy pending Senate confirmation. The CFPB does not; it does not create an option for the President. The CFPB explicitly requires that the Deputy Director becomes the Acting Director upon a vacancy. As you acknowledged up the thread, if the more specific CFPB rule conflicts with the FVRA, which it does here, the CFPB rule controls. The NLRA did not conflict with FVRA since it was an optional route to fill the vacancy. The NLRA did not require that vacancies be filled by the route it described; the CFPB rule does require it.

I don't know what lawyers you are referring to, but James Cordray, the CFPB's only Director since the agency's inception, and Elizabeth Warren, who proposed and established the CFPB, agree with me, and both discussed this on Rachel Maddow Tuesday night. They are the experts here.






Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Might as well shut the department down and give the $ straight to the finance industry then Freethinker65 Nov 2017 #1
Concur laserhaas Nov 2017 #12
Yup...bet those quicky loan joints are comin a big un..... Bengus81 Nov 2017 #35
A Chump-appointed judge sides with (surprise, surprise)... sandensea Nov 2017 #2
I trust the employed civil servants know how to handle Mulvaney. sadiegirl Nov 2017 #4
Trump reminds me of some of these right-wing third-world despots he likes to pal around with. sandensea Nov 2017 #18
The founding fathers I know are hopping up to conspire against the tyrant. librechik Nov 2017 #39
I hope they remember to keep Dense Pence in their sights too. sandensea Nov 2017 #40
We're going to redesign this agency--you are all fired pending further action librechik Nov 2017 #38
I thought I had already seen the ugliest Hump photo until seeing this one! My God. Judi Lynn Nov 2017 #17
Great idea! It really should be. sandensea Nov 2017 #19
I'm guessing TPTB realize there are just too many mouths to feed theaocp Nov 2017 #3
this will be used KT2000 Nov 2017 #5
I'm not sure how FBaggins Nov 2017 #9
If the agenct head quits KT2000 Nov 2017 #16
There are no longer any checks and balances in this country. OliverQ Nov 2017 #6
Is Appeal possible? charliea Nov 2017 #7
I thought I had seen that it was expected to be appealed BumRushDaShow Nov 2017 #11
She can... and the next court up leans left... FBaggins Nov 2017 #14
Seems like a flagrant conflict of interest for a judge newly appointed by Dump to then take on a diva77 Nov 2017 #20
Yes, and likely. The law is plainly on her side. SunSeeker Nov 2017 #27
totally expected here bluestarone Nov 2017 #8
Bad news. :( nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #10
Next upper level ..court of appeals. irisblue Nov 2017 #13
What's ironic is that destroying the CFPB erodes the public's confidence in banks Yavin4 Nov 2017 #15
Unfortunately maxrandb Nov 2017 #23
Not surprising given the language of the bill. n/t Calista241 Nov 2017 #21
What "bill"? The law establishing the CFPB clearly states the Dep. Dir. becomes Acting Dir. SunSeeker Nov 2017 #28
And the law establishing the standard for vacancies in general says the Pres. picks FBaggins Nov 2017 #30
What is the name of the 9th Circuit case you are referring to? SunSeeker Nov 2017 #31
Hooks ex rel. NLRB v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs FBaggins Nov 2017 #32
No, in Hooks the NLRB provision said the President "may" appoint. SunSeeker Nov 2017 #33
Where does the NLRB provision say "may"? FBaggins Nov 2017 #34
Hooks reads the NRLB vacancy provision as a "may." SunSeeker Nov 2017 #36
Again... I think you're missing the point FBaggins Nov 2017 #37
No, it appears you are missing the point. What part of "may" do you not understand? SunSeeker Nov 2017 #41
could someone here explain why bluestarone Nov 2017 #22
My question also. Owl Nov 2017 #24
He's running cilla4progress Nov 2017 #26
WTH?? onetexan Nov 2017 #25
There's too much focus on executives and political appointees DeminPennswoods Nov 2017 #29
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Court sides with Trump in...»Reply #41