Scalia breaks ranks, slams Bush officials on bank regulation

Source: McClatchy



* Posted on Monday, June 29, 2009

Scalia breaks ranks, slams Bush officials on bank regulation

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal bank regulator erred in quashing efforts by New York state to combat the kind of predatory mortgage lending that triggered the nation's financial crisis.

The 5-4 ruling by the high court was unusual. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative jurist, wrote the majority's opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal judges.

The five justices held that contrary to what the Bush administration had argued, states can enforce their own laws on matters such as discrimination and predatory lending, even if that crosses into areas under federal regulation.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the four dissenters, argued that laws dating back to the nation's founding prevent states from meddling in federal bank regulation. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/70985.html

now that he has come down opposite Clarence Thomas?

When things began to fall apart.

if Clarence "Foghorn" Thomas has ever written a majority opinion.

What a fuck he is, squatting there in Marshall's seat. What an embarrassment ....................

:evilfrown:

To think that Bush 1 foisted this POS on amerika

Oh and he was championed and vetted by Arlin Sphincter (R) Penn.

Here's one; still looking!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-581.ZO.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1845.ZO.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-9130.ZO.html

More here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas (Great resource!)

and here's a NEW one, just decided:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-214.ZO.html

I am far too lazy to look up anything that might have answered my question. I'd much rather bitch and be happy with my misapprehension.

I am, after all, a DUer.

He's written his share, it seems. Not that I've read any of them - that I can recall.

One of the nicest things about being an "Inactive" member of the Bar is that I don't have to keep up with these things.

Thanks tons, kiddo.............

AMAZING that I found that resource on first try!

And rather impressed with his numbers, tho I shouldn't be, I guess. Have I really believed the jokers/folks who say he's dumb???

the clerks do.

The Justices go over them, but all the research and writing is done by the clerks.

It's good to be a judge or Justice. That's how it has always been done...........................

often, he votes with Scalia, regardless of who writes the opinion. And he almost never asks a question or speaks from the bench. But, I'd forgive all those things, including his denseness if he weren't also a miserable excuse for a human being. And I don't say that only because he is Republican.

Comparing being asked some questions on his way to becoming a SCOTUS Justice to a lynching? Seriously?

Lying about Hill in a book two decades after the fact to have the last word, even though she never wanted to testify in the first place AND passed a lie detector test? Seriously?

Going all the way through his sub par academic and bureacratic legal careers on affirmative action, then voting against affirmative action from the bench every single time? Seriously?

And the list goes on. He's not only dumb, he's a dumbass POS.

Nothing will make a free market conservative become a supporter of market regulations faster than being a victim of the deregulated greed the free market is famous for.

:wow:
It...it...smells like.... a.... reality-based....decision???

Maybe Antonin Scalia felt he was rebuking Obama.

=======================================================================================================================================================
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCdEKIwbiPzQ&refer=home

Obama Backs Banks, Seeks to Block Fair-Lending Probe

By Greg Stohr

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s call for greater financial regulation may have its limits.

The administration late yesterday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to bar New York and other states from enforcing their fair-lending and other consumer-protection laws against federally chartered banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co.

The legal brief, which adopts the Bush administration’s position, is a setback for consumer and civil-rights groups that had urged President Barack Obama’s team to switch positions.
=======================================================================================================================================================

Yes the monied Corporate interests need not fear.

And his ruling in this case says that states have power over huge corporations with branches in their states.

regulation, only whether the feds were the ONLY ones who could regulate them.

No matter how the case came out, someone was going to be regulating big business. The only question was whether the states could get their two cents in or if only the feds were going to have a say. So, this is a states rights/federal pre-emption decision, not an anti-business decision.

Another case on another day will give Tony a chance to show his pro-business cred again--and he no doubt will.

I do think, however, that, if a Republican were in office, Scalia may have voted another way. Even though he pretends all his decisions are straight out of 1789, it just ain't the case (no pun intended).

If the SCOTUS did not ground its decision firmly in the Constitution, Congress plus Obama may be able overrule the SCOTUS on this via properly worded legislation. We'll see what happens.

a Constitutional law, or even a purely statutory decision. (Thanks, happyslug, for a link to the opinion).

Scalia is saying that regulations promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, ostensibly under the authority of a Congressional statute (the National Bank Act), originally enacted in 1864, went beyond the scope of the statute. (I've only read the syllabus so far, but the syllabi are usually accurate enough.)

From the syllabus (but broken into more paragraphs):

"{This is a case brought to} determine whether various national banks had violated New York’s fair-lending laws, the State’s Attorney General, whose successor in office is the petitioner here, sent them letters in 2005 requesting “in lieu of subpoena” that they provide certain nonpublic information about their lending practices.

Respondents, the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller or OCC) and a banking trade group, brought suit to enjoin the information request, claiming that the Comptroller’s regulation promulgated under the National Bank Act (NBA) prohibits that form of state law enforcement against national banks.

The District Court entered an injunction prohibiting the Attorney General from enforcing state fair-lending laws through demands for records or judicial proceedings. The Second Circuit affirmed.

Held: The Comptroller’s regulation purporting to pre-empt state law enforcement is not a reasonable interpretation of the NBA. Pp. 2–15."

...one + however many states they have branches in.

:shrug:

right to count their votes.

The minute Spitzer stood up for the states trying to curb predatory lending, loyal Bushies stopped him.

Scalia doing this is very surprising.

.

... that Roberts got the Chief Justice job, which he thought was his, since he gets (usually) 2 votes on the court. As for Slappy, he's always trying to prove he's the whitest.

This should give him something to smile about today!

'At issue in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association is whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the chief regulator of national banks, erred in shutting down New York's efforts to question banks about predatory lending practices.

The OCC convinced lower courts that then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had overstepped into federal territory when he sought non-public information about the lending practices of federally regulated banks. Forty-nine states joined New York in appealing the lower court ruling. . .

Spitzer and Cuomo were concerned that white borrowers appeared routinely to be given lower interest rates than blacks and Hispanics. Their hunch was later proved correct, as poor underwriting standards and the explosion of adjustable-rate subprime mortgages — those given to borrowers with the weakest credit, most often minorities — combined to create record foreclosures.

Losses in mortgage finance morphed into a global credit crisis, bringing down venerable investment banks including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and insurer American International Group. The rest is history.

"The Supreme Court has once again been required to act as a check against the former Bush administration's attempt to prohibit state law from protecting consumers. In holding that the OCC regulation at issue in Cuomo was invalid, the Court has reaffirmed the authority of the sovereign states to police corporate actors within a state, and protect their citizens," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.'

:-(

Bravo. Keep up the good work.
:applause:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-453.pdf

Side note: Scalia, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, was commented on having extensive background in administrative law as opposed to traditional judicial decisions.

I have lived long enough to agree with Scalia

:evilgrin:




Just sayin'.

He's supposed to be "impartial" and we are discussing him breaking ranks? I know that's not what the post is about, but it's hard to see those words in a sentence and think SCOTUS

Such characterizations/accusations are simply inappropriate re: such forum.

"breaking ranks". There shouldn't be any ranks in judging. It's slightly off topic, but that one statement hit it home for me how ridiculous this whole system of government has become.

Obviously, Hell has frozen over :crazy:

Source: American Banker


Ruling lets AGs enforce some laws, adds fuel to Obama reg plan

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's decision Monday to let states have enforcement authority over national banks could open the floodgates for lawsuits from state attorneys general and bolster momentum for President Obama's regulatory restructuring plan.

The surprise 5-to-4 ruling was a devastating blow to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which had previously won every high court challenge of its preemption power, and its full impact may not be totally clear for some time.

But observers said it gives states an opportunity to pursue legal action against national banks in enforcing state fair-lending laws, though it also limited their means to do so. Under the ruling, state enforcement agencies cannot examine banks or use subpoenas to engage in so-called "fishing expeditions," looking for evidence of wrongdoing.

Still, observers agreed that attorneys general are likely to try to use the opening if they acquire or develop evidence against a national bank.

"Most attorney generals were waiting until this case was decided," said Arthur Wilmarth, a professor at George Washington Law School. "Given the amount of private litigation we've seen, it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see some state enforcement actions."

Politically, the case could also help propel the administration's plan to create a consumer protection agency...cont'd


Read more: http://www.americanbanker.com/article.html?id=20090629O4TF9P71&from=home&email=y

I never expected it, but it's nice to be surprised by this Court.....................

playing with the Supremes tonite.

:shrug:

NT

Some posters ask questions without reading the entire article and the entire thread.

Some posters ask questions without reading even the entire article, let alone the entire thread, too.

But asking questions without even reading the opening post really takes nerve.

At last! My kind of poster!! :toast:

Christmas Present. ;-)

Also, the federal government, except for the SCOTUS is currently controlled by Democrats and may be for a while. If this were 2002, would Tony have decided the same way? He would say emphatically yes, but I would not believe him. Then again, I never do.

*watches for pigs flying overhead*

And it was SCALIA who went renegade?

Hold on a second while I find my heart medications...

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

And from Scalia, no less.

Just stunning.
:kick: & R

At issue in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association is whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the chief regulator of national banks, erred in shutting down New York's efforts to question banks about predatory lending practices.

The OCC convinced lower courts that then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had overstepped into federal territory when he sought non-public information about the lending practices of federally regulated banks. Forty-nine states joined New York in appealing the lower court ruling. . .

Spitzer and Cuomo were concerned that white borrowers appeared routinely to be given lower interest rates than blacks and Hispanics. Their hunch was later proved correct, as poor underwriting standards and the explosion of adjustable-rate subprime mortgages — those given to borrowers with the weakest credit, most often minorities — combined to create record foreclosures.

Losses in mortgage finance morphed into a global credit crisis, bringing down venerable investment banks including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and insurer American International Group. The rest is history.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3945376#3945657

"attorney generals"? And he's a law school professor?

Idiot.

"Attorneys General." The plural of "attorney general" is "attorneys general."

.... where ever it comes from. Fact is, the Feds have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not interested in any meaningful oversight or regulation over banking.

If the states want to do it, more power to them.

decision whenever it wishes. My guess is that the banking lobby has been grooming them to do just that since the State of NY first asked the banks for info on their practices.

I think that's in the past.

Just imagine it. The prestigious law firm, the hopeful prospective
standing and pensively attentive , the crusty old fart behind a
massive mahogany desk peering intently at a resume...

what's this? clerked for Clarence Thomas???

oh... indeed.