>

Yes.
republicans hate consumer protection because they want their grifting to be legal. >

Like they care about the legality of it. >

I don't doubt it for a second, and it's this bit in particular that concerns me:

It has effectively launched an attack that could imperil much of the financial regulatory infrastructure that saved the U.S. economy in 2008 and 2020.

If their intent is to remove safety valves, I really, really hope they're prepared for when the metaphorical pipes explode, especially since it was those safety valves that probably stopped socioeconomic hell from ensuing, or being as limited as it was. >

They will do it for this very reason. The regulations saved the people. With out them, people will have to start selling their kids into slavery to not starve. The rich will just have an army of free labor they can do anything with. >

We should just eat the children. I believe that’s a modest proposal. >

Why not, it’s a corporation guarding court. >

They will do away with everything that is good for ordinary Americans.  That should be obvious at this point. >


The U.S. Solicitor General recently asked for high-court review of a Fifth Circuit opinion that does effectively neuter a federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is much loathed on the right. The significance of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, though, isn’t this localized effect: Rather, it casts broader doubt on funding sources for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and, crucially, the Federal Reserve. While the Fifth Circuit took lawyerly pains to narrow its judgment, its efforts are thoroughly unconvincing. It has effectively launched an attack that could imperil much of the financial regulatory infrastructure that saved the U.S. economy in 2008 and 2020.
So far, the Supreme Court has waged war on the federal regulatory state along two main fronts. The first, exemplified by a June decision invalidating the EPA’s erstwhile Clean Power Plan, turns on whether Congress can delegate policy-making tasks to agencies. The second, which turns on the president’s powers to appoint and remove high-level officials, has cast a shadow on the consumer bureau and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
These rulings — especially on the Clean Power Plan — impose serious constraints on the government’s power to use regulation. >

Don't even need to read the article to assume that the answer is a resounding "yes".
The county would be moving in such a different direction if Ruth Bader Ginsberg hadn't died, or had chosen to retire under Obama. This is why the Supreme Court shouldn't have life-long appointments; if the members of the court were elected with terms and term limits we could hold them more accountable for their actions and have better control over our political destinies. WE should have a say in our own constitution. Does anyone think that Thomas would still be sitting if he had to endure election cycles?
One death shouldn't have the power to spiral and threaten 50+ years of civil rights gains and social protections. But, here we are. >


The county would be moving in such a different direction if Ruth Bader Ginsberg hadn't died, or had chosen to retire under Obama.
. . .
One death shouldn't have the power to spiral and threaten 50+ years of civil rights gains and social protections.

Agree about RBG needing to timely retire, but you're overstating the implications of it.
RBG timely retiring, or surviving another few months, only changes the Court from a 6-3 reactionary majority to a 5-4 reactionary majority, because there's no Barrett on the Court. It absolutely matters, but voters matter more. Later in 2014, after RBG should've retired so Obama could replace her, voters failed in the midterms, giving the GOP a Senate majority, which was how McConnell and the GOP prevented Obama from replacing Scalia, and there'd be no Gorsuch on the Court had voters done better. Then voters failed again in 2016, keeping the GOP Senate majority and electing Trump, and had either of those not happened, there would be no Kavanaugh on the Court. Then they failed again in the 2018 midterms, yet again electing a GOP Senate majority, which, had that not happened, would've given us a second chance to prevent Barrett from getting on the Court, even accounting for RBG's failure to retire and then untimely death.
RBG's failure to retire, and death while on the bench, only affected one Court seat, but the reactionaries have a three-seat margin, so it contributed, but voters' failures contributed more. And there was still an opportunity to prevent Barrett from getting onto the Court in RBG's seat in the 2018 midterms, so I'd say RBG is really only responsible for like half of that one seat.

if the members of the court were elected with terms and term limits we could hold them more accountable for their actions and have better control over our political destinies. WE should have a say in our own constitution.

Hard disagree on electing judges. But they should have term limits, perhaps with retention elections, but definitely not elections as an initial matter. >

Probably >

Does it benefit the rich? >

They've certainly got theirs, so why not? >

The Sinister Six have been tasked by Charles Koch to destroy the Republic so he can advance his Manifesto's Agenda. Any and Every chance they get to cause severe damage to society, they will jump at. Think of the worst case scenario and expect them to make it 5 times worse. >

Regressive rats >

Dems need to be shouting: They're coming for your 401(k)s