Springtime for Scammers
February 11, 2025 6:58 AM Subscribe
Matt Stoller and Paul Krugman on the dismantling of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB has a budget of 800 million but returned over 21 billion dollars to consumers since its creation in 2016. Project 2025 architect Russell Vought is the acting head of the CFPB and this is his first major action following his Senate confirmation. It is expected to be blocked by the federal courts - at least on paper - just as the "pause" on federal grants, end of birthright citizenship, mass federal employee resignation offer, and change to NIH funding formulas have been. Here is Heather Cox Richardson on what the judicial branch (and Democrat-lead states) are doing to block the Trump's administration's continuing moves to illegally consolidate power.
"As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
"As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
I think "Wall Street" and the CEOs need to change their minds about Trump, frankly, before anything will happen.
At the moment they're so happy about the potential for theft and graft and corruption they are overlooking everything else, but it's short-term thinking.
Here's a hopeful quote from Heather Cox Richardson:
Lauren Thomas, Ben Drummett, and Chip Cutter of the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that “for CEOs and bankers, the Trump euphoria is fading fast.” Consumers are losing confidence in the economy, and observers expect inflation, while business leaders find that trying to navigate Trump’s on-again-off-again tariffs is taking all their attention.
posted by subdee at 7:24 AM on February 11 [23 favorites]
At the moment they're so happy about the potential for theft and graft and corruption they are overlooking everything else, but it's short-term thinking.
Here's a hopeful quote from Heather Cox Richardson:
Lauren Thomas, Ben Drummett, and Chip Cutter of the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that “for CEOs and bankers, the Trump euphoria is fading fast.” Consumers are losing confidence in the economy, and observers expect inflation, while business leaders find that trying to navigate Trump’s on-again-off-again tariffs is taking all their attention.
posted by subdee at 7:24 AM on February 11 [23 favorites]
Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
I can't find the link but I recently read some commentary that this is classic corrupt autocratic regime behavior: you create a morass of strict rules or austerity measures or whatever that encourages polities/businesses/etc to come crawling to the regime for favors and exceptions which the regime can then dole out in return for whatever it wants, making everyone dependent entirely on staying in the regime's good graces rather than the rule of law.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:38 AM on February 11 [49 favorites]
I can't find the link but I recently read some commentary that this is classic corrupt autocratic regime behavior: you create a morass of strict rules or austerity measures or whatever that encourages polities/businesses/etc to come crawling to the regime for favors and exceptions which the regime can then dole out in return for whatever it wants, making everyone dependent entirely on staying in the regime's good graces rather than the rule of law.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:38 AM on February 11 [49 favorites]
Plutocrats before Trump is elected: "Nobody can stop him! 🤑"
Plutocrats creeping realization now: "NOBODY CAN STOP HIM 😬"
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:40 AM on February 11 [12 favorites]
Plutocrats creeping realization now: "NOBODY CAN STOP HIM 😬"
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:40 AM on February 11 [12 favorites]
Here is what they think of the rest of us and why we don't deserve help/protection:
Darren Beattie, the State Department’s acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs — a senior role that represents American foreign policy to the world — has repeatedly voiced support for mass sterilization of “low-IQ trash.”
“Population control? If only!” he wrote in May 2024. “Higher quality humans are subsidizing the fertility of lower quality humans.”
In 2023, Beattie questioned why abortion is legal and “well within Overton window of public discourse,” but the “idea of offering feral populations financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.”
posted by zaixfeep at 8:03 AM on February 11 [15 favorites]
Darren Beattie, the State Department’s acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs — a senior role that represents American foreign policy to the world — has repeatedly voiced support for mass sterilization of “low-IQ trash.”
“Population control? If only!” he wrote in May 2024. “Higher quality humans are subsidizing the fertility of lower quality humans.”
In 2023, Beattie questioned why abortion is legal and “well within Overton window of public discourse,” but the “idea of offering feral populations financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.”
posted by zaixfeep at 8:03 AM on February 11 [15 favorites]
Not entirely unrelated, from this morning: Trump Pauses Enforcement of Law Banning Foreign Bribery (NYTimes; archive link). (I should add: this is about allowing bribes to foreign officials, not allowing bribes from them; not sure they really need to announce the latter at this point.)
posted by nobody at 8:09 AM on February 11 [17 favorites]
posted by nobody at 8:09 AM on February 11 [17 favorites]
I can't find the link but I recently read some commentary that this is classic corrupt autocratic regime behavior: you create a morass of strict rules or austerity measures or whatever that encourages polities/businesses/etc to come crawling to the regime for favors and exceptions which the regime can then dole out in return for whatever it wants, making everyone dependent entirely on staying in the regime's good graces rather than the rule of law.
I think it fits Juan J. Linz and Houchang E. Chehabi's idea of a sultanistic regime:
I would argue that, true to Linz and Chehabi's definition, Trump's regime does not "represent any class or corporate interests" as such. It appears to represent the rich and corporate interests only because Trump himself is a rich business owner.
Linz and Chehabi go on to describe other assets of sultanistic regimes, such as "a pronounced cult of personality around their leader and a tendency toward dynasticism." They note that "sultanistic leaders crave charisma and surround themselves with the trappings of charismatic leadership precisely because they know they lack it." Further, sultanistic regimes tend to engage in "constitutional hypocrisy", in which they "pay lip service to constitutions ... [and] make a point of extolling democracy in their country while redefining it".
posted by jedicus at 8:14 AM on February 11 [20 favorites]
I think it fits Juan J. Linz and Houchang E. Chehabi's idea of a sultanistic regime:
The ideal type of a contemporary sultanistic regime can be constructed as follows: It is based on personal rulership, but loyalty to the ruler is motivated not by his embodying or articulating an ideology, nor by a unique personal mission, nor by any charismatic qualities, but by a mixture of fear and rewards to his collaborators. The ruler exercises his power without restraint, at his own discretion and above all unencumbered by rules or by any commitment to an ideology or value system. The binding norms and relations of bureaucratic administration are constantly subverted by arbitrary personal decisions of the ruler, which he does not feel constrained to justify in ideological terms. As a result corruption reigns supreme at all levels of society. The staff of such a ruler is constituted not by an establishment with distinctive career lines, like a bureaucratic army or a civil service, recruited based on more or less universal criteria, but largely by people chosen directly by the ruler. Among them we very often find members of his family, friends, business associates, or individuals directly involved in using violence to sustain the regime. Their position derives from their purely personal submission to the ruler, and their position of authority in society derives merely from this relation. The ruler and his associates do not represent any class or corporate interests. Although such regimes can in many ways be modern, what characteristizes them is the weakness of traditional and legal-rational legitimation and the lack of ideological justification.(emphasis added)
I would argue that, true to Linz and Chehabi's definition, Trump's regime does not "represent any class or corporate interests" as such. It appears to represent the rich and corporate interests only because Trump himself is a rich business owner.
Linz and Chehabi go on to describe other assets of sultanistic regimes, such as "a pronounced cult of personality around their leader and a tendency toward dynasticism." They note that "sultanistic leaders crave charisma and surround themselves with the trappings of charismatic leadership precisely because they know they lack it." Further, sultanistic regimes tend to engage in "constitutional hypocrisy", in which they "pay lip service to constitutions ... [and] make a point of extolling democracy in their country while redefining it".
posted by jedicus at 8:14 AM on February 11 [20 favorites]
I don’t want CEOs and Wall Street to lose their taste for Trump. They are a big part of the problem. I want heads on pikes. Screwing around with lawsuits until 2028 is a knife to a gun fight situation.
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:50 AM on February 11 [5 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:50 AM on February 11 [5 favorites]
There's not much to be said that hasn't already been said. Marbury vs. Madison was a long time ago and we counted on presidents following the tradition. With the courts (but not SCOTUS) as our only defense against tyranny we have to continue counting on that tradition.
posted by tommasz at 9:02 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 9:02 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]
“Higher quality humans are subsidizing the fertility of lower quality humans.”
That phrase sounded better in the original German.
posted by Gelatin at 9:12 AM on February 11 [14 favorites]
That phrase sounded better in the original German.
posted by Gelatin at 9:12 AM on February 11 [14 favorites]
To be a little more nuanced than my prior comment - I think that capitalism and wealth inequality together with the rise of big tech and the destruction of useful media, led us to this point. I think that using the gears of finance to beat Trump is a mistake, though I won't say no if it happens. Any meaningful change has to be more than "replace Trump with JD Vance" or "get 51 Democrats in the Senate". We should be fomenting and inciting protests that combine Occupy, BLM, Women's March, and all of that and demanding a complete reset of the system starting by dismantling the largest corporations, creating strict privacy laws, and brutally ejecting the wealthy from all levels of government.
I mean, I have started an IRL meetup with people from the Crooked Media Discord, and someone there just posted about their excitement at the idea of Mark Cuban in 2028. Like, NO. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT OWN SPORTS TEAMS WORTH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Are you fucking kidding me?
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:19 AM on February 11 [11 favorites]
I mean, I have started an IRL meetup with people from the Crooked Media Discord, and someone there just posted about their excitement at the idea of Mark Cuban in 2028. Like, NO. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT OWN SPORTS TEAMS WORTH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Are you fucking kidding me?
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:19 AM on February 11 [11 favorites]
...you create a morass of strict rules or austerity measures or whatever that encourages polities/businesses/etc to come crawling to the regime for favors and exceptions which the regime can then dole out in return for whatever it wants, making everyone dependent entirely on staying in the regime's good grace...
That also applies to the "other" side (Dems).
posted by davidmsc at 9:33 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]
That also applies to the "other" side (Dems).
posted by davidmsc at 9:33 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]
When I took social studies (our name for history) in middle school, I was bored by the pointless memorization of dates. Only in my adult life did I develop a taste for history as a story of how we got where we are, and how individual human foibles and follies shape and are shaped by the course of world events. I guess that the world is made up of people who never had this realization, or are actively engaged in denying the relevance of history.
My understanding is that Godwin himself declared it not Godwinning to make the obvious comparison to this administration, so I feel safe wondering, in light of AzraelBrown's comment above, if any of our super-intelligent oligarchic class is familiar with another memorable time that the moneyed class put an arrogant populist leader in power, content with their certainty that they could control him once he was in office?
posted by It is regrettable that at 9:35 AM on February 11 [9 favorites]
My understanding is that Godwin himself declared it not Godwinning to make the obvious comparison to this administration, so I feel safe wondering, in light of AzraelBrown's comment above, if any of our super-intelligent oligarchic class is familiar with another memorable time that the moneyed class put an arrogant populist leader in power, content with their certainty that they could control him once he was in office?
posted by It is regrettable that at 9:35 AM on February 11 [9 favorites]
Not to suggest anything so foolish as that Dems have never engaged in this sort of patronage-based abuse of power, but I think that either I misunderstand this remark, or it is at best just slightly shy of bothsidesism. There's only one modern US party that openly views the Presidency as solely an opportunity for grift, rather than as a call to serve the nation. Even our worst past presidents, at least in my memory (let me not speak to, say, 19th-century presidents, about many of whom I know little), have felt some of the gravity of their office, and striven to live up to it, even if I disagree profoundly with the way that they have felt that it was appropriate to serve the country....you create a morass of strict rules or austerity measures or whatever that encourages polities/businesses/etc to come crawling to the regime for favors and exceptions which the regime can then dole out in return for whatever it wants, making everyone dependent entirely on staying in the regime's good grace...That also applies to the "other" side (Dems).
posted by It is regrettable that at 9:42 AM on February 11 [30 favorites]
I remember when I was 17 I stopped at a red light. It was like 11pm in a quiet suburb. No one around in any direction as far as the eye could see. No reason for this light to be red. And it was a long light.
So I was like fuck it, and went through the red light.
Nothing happened. But as soon as I did it, I felt so stupid. There was no point to that.
And I realized that the only magic power these red lights hold is our communal agreement to not run through them. For the benefit of everyone to not get in car accidents or hit pedestrians. Even if it means sitting for an extra minute in a dead street late at night.
So anyways that’s what this is.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:51 AM on February 11 [18 favorites]
So I was like fuck it, and went through the red light.
Nothing happened. But as soon as I did it, I felt so stupid. There was no point to that.
And I realized that the only magic power these red lights hold is our communal agreement to not run through them. For the benefit of everyone to not get in car accidents or hit pedestrians. Even if it means sitting for an extra minute in a dead street late at night.
So anyways that’s what this is.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:51 AM on February 11 [18 favorites]
I oppose the dismantling of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but is anyone else bothered by the apples to oranges comparison of "The CFPB has a budget of 800 million but returned over 21 billion dollars to consumers since its creation in 2016."
Isn't the budget number an annual number while the saved number is over a period of 8 years or am I missing something?
posted by sabraonthehill at 11:21 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Isn't the budget number an annual number while the saved number is over a period of 8 years or am I missing something?
posted by sabraonthehill at 11:21 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Well no I'm not bothered because while, yes, I read it the same way you do, still I don't think it is misleading in its point. CFPB is saving significantly more than its budget, annually.
$21 billion divided by 8 is well more than $2 billion dollars per year, so as against a budget of $800 million dollars per year it is still a win over the 8 years. Maybe it returned substantially more in some years and less in others, but I don't think the statistic is misleading....
....unless I have misunderstood either your comment OR the math, either of which is embarrassingly possible.
posted by fennario at 11:36 AM on February 11 [8 favorites]
$21 billion divided by 8 is well more than $2 billion dollars per year, so as against a budget of $800 million dollars per year it is still a win over the 8 years. Maybe it returned substantially more in some years and less in others, but I don't think the statistic is misleading....
....unless I have misunderstood either your comment OR the math, either of which is embarrassingly possible.
posted by fennario at 11:36 AM on February 11 [8 favorites]
From outside the United States, watching your country being dismantled so quickly and easily for the benefit of the rich has been absolutely astounding. Trump's ridiculous attention-grabbing stunts make the headlines, and in the background billionaires are set to become trillionaires, and the rest of us will be digital serfs.
posted by Savannah at 12:24 PM on February 11 [26 favorites]
posted by Savannah at 12:24 PM on February 11 [26 favorites]
"As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
The Republican states understand that the point of power is to make people beg.
posted by srboisvert at 12:27 PM on February 11 [10 favorites]
The Republican states understand that the point of power is to make people beg.
posted by srboisvert at 12:27 PM on February 11 [10 favorites]
I remember when I was 17 I stopped at a red light. It was like 11pm in a quiet suburb. No one around in any direction as far as the eye could see. No reason for this light to be red. And it was a long light.
So I was like fuck it, and went through the red light.
Nothing happened. But as soon as I did it, I felt so stupid. There was no point to that.
Traffic laws are largely meant to keep you from getting hit by the cars you don't see rather than the ones you do see. That's why you shouldn't ever run lights and why you should signal even if you don't think anyone is behind you.
posted by srboisvert at 12:30 PM on February 11 [13 favorites]
So I was like fuck it, and went through the red light.
Nothing happened. But as soon as I did it, I felt so stupid. There was no point to that.
Traffic laws are largely meant to keep you from getting hit by the cars you don't see rather than the ones you do see. That's why you shouldn't ever run lights and why you should signal even if you don't think anyone is behind you.
posted by srboisvert at 12:30 PM on February 11 [13 favorites]
That also applies to the "other" side (Dems).
Yes, but the rampant grifting of the William "Boss" Tweed days of Tammany Hall are long behind us. Catch up.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:44 PM on February 11 [6 favorites]
Yes, but the rampant grifting of the William "Boss" Tweed days of Tammany Hall are long behind us. Catch up.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:44 PM on February 11 [6 favorites]
“ I remember when I was 17 I stopped at a red light. It was like 11pm in a quiet suburb. No one around in any direction as far as the eye could see. No reason for this light to be red. And it was a long light.
So I was like fuck it, and went through the red light.
Nothing happened. But as soon as I did it, I felt so stupid. There was no point to that.
Traffic laws are largely meant to keep you from getting hit by the cars you don't see rather than the ones you do see. That's why you shouldn't ever run lights and why you should signal even if you don't think anyone is behind you.”
Largely. But not all. I stopped at a red light in Fort Thomas KY at 3 am on my way to my stepdad’s house. The light stayed red. Two minutes. Five minutes. There was a cop car in the bank parking lot on the corner. I put on my handbrake and hazards, got out of the car, and approached to a respectful distance from the cop car. “Excuse me!” I shouted, respectfully. “Can you please turn the light so I can go home?”
Without acknowledging me, the cop started his car and raced away down the hill. I went back to my car, got in, ran the light, and went home to bed. That light and its associated laws was for catching Cincinnati Bengals players in late night traffic stops in suburban northern Kentucky.
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:03 PM on February 11 [9 favorites]
So I was like fuck it, and went through the red light.
Nothing happened. But as soon as I did it, I felt so stupid. There was no point to that.
Traffic laws are largely meant to keep you from getting hit by the cars you don't see rather than the ones you do see. That's why you shouldn't ever run lights and why you should signal even if you don't think anyone is behind you.”
Largely. But not all. I stopped at a red light in Fort Thomas KY at 3 am on my way to my stepdad’s house. The light stayed red. Two minutes. Five minutes. There was a cop car in the bank parking lot on the corner. I put on my handbrake and hazards, got out of the car, and approached to a respectful distance from the cop car. “Excuse me!” I shouted, respectfully. “Can you please turn the light so I can go home?”
Without acknowledging me, the cop started his car and raced away down the hill. I went back to my car, got in, ran the light, and went home to bed. That light and its associated laws was for catching Cincinnati Bengals players in late night traffic stops in suburban northern Kentucky.
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:03 PM on February 11 [9 favorites]
The CFPB has done so much to help consumers, particularly low- to moderate-income consumers. They partner with public libraries a lot--on their dime, not ours--so I (a librarian) have taken advantage of many of their offerings over the past decade or so. Free public education resources that actually, you know, help the average person not go into debt (or manage it if they do), learn to budget, understand the importance of savings, etc. They were truly worth so much more than they were ever given credit (or funded) for.
From the OP, this right here is why the Republicans (and too many Dems, tbh) were the CFPB's death knell from the beginning:
posted by Rykey at 4:11 PM on February 11 [25 favorites]
From the OP, this right here is why the Republicans (and too many Dems, tbh) were the CFPB's death knell from the beginning:
The CFPB has a budget of 800 million but returned over 21 billion dollars to consumersMoney's just flowing the wrong damn way, you see.
posted by Rykey at 4:11 PM on February 11 [25 favorites]
The interesting part will be when judges start ordering officials put in jail for contempt of court. They can't stick Trump in jail, but everyone around him is certainly fair game. What happens when police with a court order show up to put the entire cabinet in jail for 30 days?
posted by madhadron at 8:07 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
posted by madhadron at 8:07 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
What happens when police with a court order show up to put the entire cabinet in jail for 30 days?
Easy. Blanket pardon for the entire executive branch.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 3:56 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
Easy. Blanket pardon for the entire executive branch.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 3:56 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
It's done a lot to help low to moderate income consumers, but also done a lot to hurt them by completely shutting them out of the market for purchasing real estate. The median first time home buyer has jumped up to 38 years old and the median repeat home buyer is 62 years old. And repeat home buyers make up 75% of the market. Whoops. Some reforms might be nice.
Also $21b is nice but the US home market is $50trillion dollars.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:48 AM on February 12
Also $21b is nice but the US home market is $50trillion dollars.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:48 AM on February 12
What does the CFPB have to do with when people can afford to buy homes? Genuinely curious how these two are related.
Unless you are advocating we go back to pre 2008 mortgage lending practices and crash the economy again.
posted by subdee at 2:16 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
Unless you are advocating we go back to pre 2008 mortgage lending practices and crash the economy again.
posted by subdee at 2:16 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
Blanket pardon for the entire executive branch.
You can't pardon your way out of civil contempt...
posted by BungaDunga at 2:50 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
You can't pardon your way out of civil contempt...
posted by BungaDunga at 2:50 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
What happens when police with a court order show up to put the entire cabinet in jail for 30 days?
Get another bigger huge-r court to drive up in a Nazi-memorabilia-owning billionaire's RV. Beep beep. Get in, loser, we're going verdict shopping.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:47 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Get another bigger huge-r court to drive up in a Nazi-memorabilia-owning billionaire's RV. Beep beep. Get in, loser, we're going verdict shopping.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:47 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
What happens when police with a court order show up to put the entire cabinet in jail for 30 days?
I heard this addressed the other day. If a court needs to enforce a judgment they send U.S. Marshalls. Unfortunately, U.S. Marshalls are under the jurisdiction of Trump's former lawyer, and now AG, Pam Bondi.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:50 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
I heard this addressed the other day. If a court needs to enforce a judgment they send U.S. Marshalls. Unfortunately, U.S. Marshalls are under the jurisdiction of Trump's former lawyer, and now AG, Pam Bondi.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:50 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
US Marshalls are exactly the armed force helping Elon Musk's DOGE team break into all those federal Bureaus.
posted by subdee at 8:47 AM on February 13
posted by subdee at 8:47 AM on February 13
It's done a lot to help low to moderate income consumers, but also done a lot to hurt them by completely shutting them out of the market for purchasing real estate. The median first time home buyer has jumped up to 38 years old and the median repeat home buyer is 62 years old. And repeat home buyers make up 75% of the market. Whoops. Some reforms might be nice.
CFPB involvement in mortgages all seems to revolve around requiring lenders to honestly disclose the costs and terms of mortgages.
How does that effect the unaffordability of housing? If anything it should drive down demand.
posted by srboisvert at 10:19 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
CFPB involvement in mortgages all seems to revolve around requiring lenders to honestly disclose the costs and terms of mortgages.
How does that effect the unaffordability of housing? If anything it should drive down demand.
posted by srboisvert at 10:19 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
> It's done a lot to help low to moderate income consumers, but also done a lot to hurt them by completely shutting them out of the market for purchasing real estate.
Housing affordability since 2008 is a supply problem: we just aren't building enough houses to meet the demand, so houses are very expensive. That's now compounded by high mortgage rates that make the real price of a home even more expensive. CFPB can't do anything about either of these things.
posted by dis_integration at 10:13 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Housing affordability since 2008 is a supply problem: we just aren't building enough houses to meet the demand, so houses are very expensive. That's now compounded by high mortgage rates that make the real price of a home even more expensive. CFPB can't do anything about either of these things.
posted by dis_integration at 10:13 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Also, the question of the US Marshals is an interesting one. There is a US Marshal Service that is part of the executive branch but the Marshals themselves were established by the judiciary act of 1789 and are supposed to obey the orders of the federal judiciary in each circuit. I do not think they are really part of the executive branch. It's entirely unclear what would happen (besides "constitutional crisis") if a federal judge ordered the marshals to do something, and pam bondi told them not to. The judiciary act language is wiggly:
posted by dis_integration at 10:26 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for a term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the district in which that court shall sit. And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have the power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as shall be occasion, one or more deputiesThis implies that they could claim the judge's order is unlawful and disobey for that reason. I have no idea if there is case law about this, although would be surprised if not.
posted by dis_integration at 10:26 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
« Older Thalassa Mechane | Maki-e Fountain Pens Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Really, the only way I can envision this changing is if things get so bad that the Republicans turn against Trump and his cronies. As long as they enable him, we will continue to be in a Constitutional crisis.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 7:14 AM on February 11 [16 favorites]