Tangle - The Supreme Court's CFPB ruling.
Episode Date: May 21, 2024The CFPB ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected a conservative-led challenge to the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In a 7-2 ruling, the justices conclud...ed that the CFPB's funding did not violate the Constitution, reversing a lower court decision. Justice Clarence Thomas broke with Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, whom he typically aligns with, to write the majority opinion.You can read today's podcast here, our “Under the Radar” story here and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.In our latest YouTube video, Isaac went to the University of Pennsylvania to witness and report on the protests. 12 hours later, the police tore down the encampment. Hear from Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israel protesters, and see the footage of the campus here.Check the next episode of our new podcast series, The Undecideds. In episode 3, our focus shifts from Donald Trump toward President Joe Biden. Much has been made in the media about his age and memory and whether he’s cognitively capable of handling another term. But an unanticipated performance at the State of the Union reignited his base and left many questioning that narrative. And while Donald Trump faces a jury of his peers in court, the court of public opinion continues to weigh in on the effectiveness of Biden’s foreign policies, with an eye to the conflicts between Israel and Palestine, Ukraine and Russia, and our own protracted clash at our southern border. Our undecided voters share their observations on the current commander in chief and how his decisions on the world stage affect their decision in the voting booth. You can listen to Episode 3 here.Today’s clickables: New YouTube video (1:22), Quick hits (2:29), Today’s story (4:41), Right’s take (7:51), Interview with Patrick Brenner (10:36), Left’s take (21:22), Isaac’s take (25:23), Listener question (29:44), Under the Radar (33:40), Numbers (34:22), Have a nice day (35:29)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the CFPB? Let us know!Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis
Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond
Chinatown.
When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal
web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight.
Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.
The flu remains a serious disease.
Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast,
the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be talking about
the CFPB ruling, that's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that the Supreme Court just
handed down. Pretty important stuff. You know, we cover a lot of stuff. Yesterday, we did this
Alito flag controversy, something I think,
you know, people care about, but maybe is not something that actually is going to impact
anybody's life tangibly, really. This kind of stuff is something that really impacts a lot
of people's lives. I mean, the CFPB is a consumer agency that has a lot of impact on the ways people
can reconcile being, you know being defrauded or taken
advantage of by a financial institution, things like that. So this is a pretty important story.
I'm excited to cover it. It's a little wonky, a little nerdy, but I think there's a lot of
meat on the bone here. Before we jump in, I just want to give a quick heads up that yesterday
we released our video on the Penn encampment. I went over to the University of Penn. I interviewed some students, some counter
protesters. We took a bunch of footage. We hung out on campus all day to just see what it was like.
And we made a YouTube video out of it. So the video is up right now. If you go look up Tangle
News on YouTube, I highly encourage you to watch the
video. I would very much appreciate it. The more people who watch the video, who like it, who
comment, the people who subscribe to our YouTube channel, doing all of that, it helps us in the
little algorithm game that we're all playing. Basically, we want this video to be shown to
people who don't follow Tangle News. And the only way to make that happen is if it gets a big burst of interest and viewership in the beginning. So please do that. It would be super
helpful and we would appreciate it a lot. All right, with that out of the way, I'm going to
pass it over to John to introduce today's story and I'll be back for my take and your questions.
questions. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today.
First up, Donald Trump's lawyers rested their case in the so-called hush money trial,
setting the stage for closing arguments next week. During the final days of testimony,
former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen admitted he stole from the Trump organization.
Number two, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can appeal his extradition to the U.S. to face espionage charges a London court ruled on Monday. Number three, chair of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC, Martin Grunberg, said he is prepared to step down
after a scathing report on harassment inside the agency.
Number four, four states, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, and Oregon,
are holding House primaries on Tuesday,
while California's 20th District is holding an election
to replace former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
And number five, the United States says its troops will exit Niger
no later than September 15th
after a new ruling junta terminated its military
cooperation accord. The Supreme Court Thursday rejected an effort to undermine the power of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency was created after the 2008 financial crisis
as a way to protect consumers from unfair financial practices
like deceptive mortgage lending or excessive credit card fees.
Meantime, the Supreme Court has handed down a major decision
upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The banking industry had argued the watchdog agency is illegally funded.
But today, in a seven to two opinion, the court rejected the attack and a major win for the Biden
administration and Democrats. It's a big win for the Biden administration, as you said, Phil,
and also for consumers, those who sought protection from corporate financial abuses after the 2008
financial crisis. This is the agency that was created by Congress,
led by Democrats, Senator Elizabeth Warren, to try to prevent some of those abuses,
things that preyed on consumers, confused consumers during the mortgage crisis that led up
to that period of time. On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected a conservative-led
challenge to the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the CFPB.
In a 7-2 ruling, the justices concluded that the CFPB's funding did not violate the Constitution, reversing a lower court decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas broke with Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, whom he typically aligns with, to write the majority opinion.
to write the majority opinion. A little look back here, the CFPB is the federal regulatory agency established in 2010 to oversee financial products and services as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from
Massachusetts, spearheaded the creation of the agency and led it in its early days. The CFPB
gives consumers legal pathways to take action against predatory companies and financial practices, and it has returned nearly $21 billion to consumers since its founding.
However, the agency has been politically divisive from the start.
Many Republicans have opposed the agency, particularly its nontraditional funding mechanism.
Rather than relying on the annual budget process in Congress for funds, the CFPB is funded directly by the Federal
Reserve with an annual limit of over $700 million. Let's talk more about the case. In 2017, the CFPB
issued new regulations on payday lending, prompting two industry groups to challenge the rule in
court. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the
challenge to the rule, but agreed with the plaintiffs that the CFPB's funding structure violated Article 1, Section 9
of the Constitution, which says that no money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of appropriations made by law. The Fifth Circuit said the CFPB's funding was
double-insulated from Congress because it received its money directly from the Federal Reserve
and because the Fed, rather than Congress, determined the amount of funding
necessary to carry out its duties.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling.
In its 22-page opinion, Justice Thomas argued that appropriations have been understood as
a legislative means of authorizing expenditures from a source of public funds since their
inception in the 18th century.
The CFPB's funding fits squarely in this definition of appropriations, Thomas wrote,
since Congress specified the Federal Reserve as the source for funding and indicated how the CFPB
should use it. Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett
Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, and Katonji Brown Jackson in his opinion.
Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, and Katonji Brown Jackson, in his opinion.
In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the drafters of the Constitution would be shocked and horrified by the CFPB's funding scheme, and said centuries of historical practice show that
the Appropriations Clause demands legislative control over the source and disposition of the
funds. Alito added that the CFPB's funding structure affords it the very
kind of financial independence that the Appropriations Clause was designed to prevent.
Today, we're going to look at some arguments from the right and the left about the ruling,
and then Isaac's take.
We'll be right back after this quick commercial break.
First up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right is disappointed in the
court's decision but suggests the victory for CFPB could be short-lived. Some express dismay
at congressional Republicans' seeming disinterest in disbanding the agency.
Others say the CFPB will continue to harm consumers it's meant to protect. In the Wall Street Journal,
Hal Scott called the ruling a Pyrrhic Supreme Court victory for the CFPB. The justices held
that the Constitution's Appropriations Clause authorizes Congress to fund the Bureau with
profits from the Federal Reserve. But for nearly two years, the Fed has been losing money because
of rising interest rates. That calls into question the legitimacy of the CFPB's funding since September of 2022,
and all regulations issued during that period, Scott wrote.
The Fed has continued to fund the CFPB, deepening its losses to the tune of $721 million in 2023.
This funding is supposed to come from Fed earnings, and unless the term earnings is
understood to mean revenue without regard to cost, the CFPB would seem to have no valid claim now to
any money from the Fed. This means the agency can't rely on the Appropriations Clause or last
week's decision by the high court to justify the legality of its continued operations. Its general
operations may now be illegal, including current enforcement
of all its rules, Scott said. The CFPB shutdown could be accomplished through a new round of
litigation, or if Donald Trump becomes president again, he could order it himself. Meanwhile,
the Fed should itself have to justify how it can fund an agency when the Fed has no real earnings.
In red state, Ward Clark asked, how may the GOP reign in
this rogue agency? The CFPB survived a major challenge when the Supreme Court allowed it to
keep its over-regulating doors open. So we may very well ask, what now? Well, some members of
Congress have thought of that, Clark said. Representative Andy Barr, the Republican from
Kentucky, is pushing the CFPB Transparency and Accountability Reform Act, or H.R. 2798.
This bill fiddles with the structure of the CFPB but does not eliminate it, as does Representative Blaine Lekemeyer's Consumer Financial Protection Commission Act, H.R. 1411.
This strikes me as a lot of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There's a common thread in all of these proposed bills,
none of which are likely to go anywhere, and that is none of them outright repeal the CFPB,
Clark wrote. Barring some overwhelming takeover of Congress and the executive branch by actual small government conservatives and libertarians, it's looking like we're stuck with the CFPB and
all of its overweening and intrusive activities, along with all of the other overweening and
intrusive government bureaus and agencies.
But the fight is still worth fighting, if for no other reason than to keep the inevitable
expansion of a halfway sane level.
In The Hill, Patrick M. Brenner said the decision threatens America's consumers.
Isaac got a chance to talk with Patrick about this article.
Patrick Brenner, welcome to the show. Isaac, thanks for having me. I appreciate
what you guys do. Yeah, this is one of those cases, stories, Supreme Court rulings, you know,
everything about the agency, the CFPB, I really struggle with personally. I just kind of,
I go back and forth. Some days I'm rooting for them. Some days I'm not. I loved your piece in the Hill. And I'd love to just start maybe with giving you a chance to kind of summarize't particularly like the CFPB. I think that
they're a little out of control. I think that the leadership of Director Rokhi Chopra, they've taken
some action that is questionable at the least. But the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the funding
mechanism of the CFPB. They were allowed to tap the Federal Reserve,
the Treasury, for being able to fund its operations. And that was the question at
issue in the Supreme Court ruling. We're trying to make an argument right now that that Supreme
Court ruling is only going to embolden the CFPB to make moves that are really not within its purview.
And that really became evident in, I think it was earlier this year in March, when the CFPB
came out with a circular that was targeting comparison shopping tools. They were targeting
financial comparison shopping tools like Credit Karma and NerdWallet, referral sites that get compensated for referring potential borrowers to specific financial products and providers of those financial products. But the overly broad language of the circular itself has actually exposed groups like
Expedia and SitterCity.com to regulation from a financial entity that should have no say in their
operations. Yeah, actually, your column was the first I had read about this. Somehow I missed
this story when it happened. And it certainly gave me some pause.
I mean, I'm curious if you could sort of explain what the regulation is intending to do and kind
of what your fear is, because I'm not entirely clear on why or how the CFPB is able to, you know,
tell Expedia.com that it can't use the current business model that it uses.
I think there's a couple of things at play. The CFPB likes picking targets and finding scapegoats
and making an example out of them. And the example that I believe the CFPB is trying to make here
with this new circular and this new rulemaking is in the
short-term small dollar lending sector, sometimes referred to as payday loans. Some of these
short-term lenders are payday lenders. Some of them are not payday lenders. It depends on the
period of the loan, the installment basis of the loan. I don't want to get into the specifics of what constitutes payday
lending, but this circular was targeting that sector. And the problem is that so many of these
operators are not able to advertise directly on some of the social media platforms like Google.
So lenders don't advertise. In lieu of lenders being able to directly advertise,
they use lead generators. And these are the subject of the target of the CFPB circular,
the lead generators, the sites that people go to to apply for a loan, and then they get provided a list of options that fit their financial needs. And in so doing,
the CFPB is making the assertion that these lead generators are being financially compensated
every single time that a lead is referred to a financial service. So I hop onto Google. I search for short-term small
dollar loan. A list of options populates. I click on one that's an ad and I get directed to a website
where I can apply one time and I get recommended a couple of different options that fulfill the
financial need that I identified in the application. But it's one
application, and then that application gets moved to the next step with the lender of my choice.
It's like Expedia. When you log into Expedia and you select your origination, and then you select
your destination, and then you get to pick which air service provider you want to use to get to where
you're going all those options are presented to you and the consumer makes a decision to use
whatever air service provider they or air carrier they want to provide um and this this circular is
is so weird it's it's really just taking the c CFPB to a whole new level when they're targeting
these comparison shopping tools because of the overly broad language that they use. I think that
Expedia and SitterCity.com, you might even throw Upwork and Fiverr into this as well, where the
CFPB, with this overly broad language, they're just being a little too
aggressive, has either accidentally or maliciously targeted these groups. It's originally coming from
that perspective, though, of the CFPB wanting to make an example out of the short-term lending
sector. So I guess I'm curious, just to bring it back to this ruling for a moment, I mean,
just to bring it back to this ruling for a moment. I mean, I'm wondering, A, if this was the outcome you expected at the Supreme Court, and B, if maybe you could speak to your sense of the danger here
a little bit. I mean, it sounds like part of your argument is that you're worried this ruling's
going to further embolden the CFPB. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about that and also just whether this was how you expected this to go.
The Supreme Court decided to really not do a whole lot with their decision. What I mean by that is
it was specifically the funding structure that was being challenged, nothing else. And they're very good at
isolating the specific problem being addressed. And the Supreme Court, with that 7-2 split,
ruled that the funding mechanism behind the CFPP was in fact constitutional. I will be frank and
tell you that I am not surprised. I will be frank and say that I don't necessarily think that they're wrong.
But as we're gearing up into this election cycle,
the Biden administration is getting really aggressive with consumer protection.
I think that this ruling at this particular time
is only going to embolden the actions of its director.
And they're going to get more aggressive.
And we've already seen them becoming more aggressive, specifically with that circular
that they released earlier this year. Got it. And I guess going forward, I'm curious,
before you get out of here, if you could give our listeners an idea of what you're going to be
watching in this space in the months ahead. I mean, what will be signals for you about what direction the CFPB is going? And what do you feel like are
some important threads about this story that you're keeping an eye on?
Well, I can't tell you how many more notifications that I've gotten over the last week from the CFPB
and Director Chopra just on social media. you can see an increase in activity there, specifically in
activity surrounding litigation from the CFPB against what they call nefarious actors. And
that increase in activity is pretty indicative of this new emboldened state. I mean, Director
Rohit Chopra has essentially been given carte blanche by the
Supreme Court of the United States, not just in court, but in the court of public opinion as well.
I mean, if the Supreme Court is ruling in favor of your agency, the general public is going to
make some assumptions from that. And I think those assumptions are that the CFPB is here to stay, the CFPB is ruled as constitutional, and they're not going away anytime soon.
But we'll keep an eye out on additional circulars and additional rulemaking coming from the CFPB.
Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of
Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond
Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal
web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown
is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.
The flu remains a serious disease.
Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada,
which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases.
What can you do this flu season?
Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.
Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.
It's the first cell-based
flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for
free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur and 100% protection is not
guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca. Specifically in the case where they're using and leveraging overly broad language to
cast broader nets. The problem with this, I'm going to go back to the circular from earlier
this year, Isaac. The problem with the approach is that let's assume that Expedia is being targeted by the CFPB with that particular rulemaking.
Should the CFPB actually enforce action against these lead generators or these comparison shopping
sites? I think that the CFPB is actually positioning itself to supplant them. I think
the CFPB wants to be the referral mechanism for not just financial services, but beyond the financial
services sector. They want to be a lead generator, a government-operated lead generator. And that's a
dangerous position for a government agency to be in. You've got this government entity that
does not have shareholders, that is led by an unelected bureaucrat that is picking the winners
and losers in the financial services
sector and potentially outside the financial services sector. That does not bode well.
Patrick Brenner, I appreciate you giving us some of your time. If people want to keep up with your
work and your thoughts on this issue in particular, where's the best place for them to do that?
Well, you can find more about us in the Southwest Public Policy Institute at southwestpolicy.com. Thank you so
much, Patrick. I appreciate it. Thank you, Isaac. All right, that's it for what the right is saying,
which brings us to what the left is saying.
The left is relieved by the court's decision, saying a different outcome would have been disastrous. Some lambasted the Fifth Circuit for forcing the court to take the case in the
first place. Others questioned the historical accuracy of the dissent. In Vox, Ian Millhiser
wrote, the Supreme Court decides not to trigger a second Great Depression. In a sensible world,
no judge would have taken the plaintiff's argument in CFPB versus Community Financial
Services Association seriously. Briefly, they claim that the Constitution limits Congress's
ability to enact perpetual funding, meaning that the legislation funding a particular federal
program does not sunset after a certain period of time, Millhiser said. The implications of this
entirely made-up
theory of the Constitution are breathtaking. As Justice Elena Kagan points out in a concurring
opinion in the CFPB case, spending that does not require periodic appropriations, whether annual
or longer, accounted for nearly two-thirds of the federal budget, and that includes popular
programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Thankfully, that won't happen.
Seven justices joined the majority opinion in CFPB, which rejects the Fifth Circuit's attack
on the United States economy and restates the longstanding rule governing congressional
appropriations, Millhiser wrote. As seven justices correctly conclude, the fact that CFPB's funding
mechanism is unusual does not make it unconstitutional, and judges are not supposed
to simply make up new constitutional restrictions on Congress because they think that Congress acted in
a way that is novel or unwise.
In CNN, Steve Vladeck criticized the truly preposterous ruling by the Fifth Circuit that
put the case before the court.
The real headline from Thursday is not that the Supreme Court is more moderate than its
critics often claim.
It's that there's a court of appeals that is even more extreme. Not just in this case,
but in 10 other cases the Supreme Court will decide this term, Fladdock said.
Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, all of the agency's work on behalf of consumers could
have been erased. At an even broader level, the argument against how Congress funds the CFPB
could also have been used to go after the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve itself, with potential cataclysmic financial consequences.
The outcome is representative of a pattern we're likely to see over and over again this term,
in which bipartisan Supreme Court majorities regularly slap down the Fifth Circuit in cases
with clear ideological valiances, Lattic added. The real takeaway from Thursday's ruling, and from
the broader pattern for which it is likely to Thursday's ruling, and from the broader pattern
for which it is likely to be exemplar, is that the current Supreme Court is less radical than
the Fifth Circuit. But given the Fifth Circuit's behavior in this case and others, that tells us
a lot more about the federal appellate judges in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas than it says
about the justices in Washington. In Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Denny said,
The originalist justices keep getting history spectacularly wrong.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. In standard originalist fashion,
he purported to consult the text of the Constitution and contemporaneous sources
to conclude that, in order to satisfy the original public meaning of the Appropriations Clause,
appropriations need only identify a source of public funds
and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes, Denny wrote.
Alito's dissent, which Gorsuch joined,
offers a dueling originalist account that reaches a very different conclusion.
Alito states incorrectly that Dodd-Frank empowers the CFPB to draw as much money as it wants
from any identified source
for any permissible purpose until the end of time, Denny said.
This is not the first time Supreme Court justices have made originalist arguments that befuddle
people who actually know a thing or two about the time period.
Conservatives like Thomas and Alito insist that squabbling over the past is the only
appropriate way to assess the Constitution's meaning.
But the justices aren't trained in history, and actual historians are becoming adamant in real time that the justices aren't any good at it.
All right, let's send it over to Isaac for his take.
All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take.
So one of the first big pieces of investigative journalism that I ever worked on was actually
about payday lending. I published a piece in a news outlet called A+, which has since folded,
and unfortunately, the piece no longer lives on the internet. There is a web archive
link to the story that's in today's newsletter. But for the story, I went through the process of
taking out a series of payday loans, reluctantly justifying their need with more and more dire
financial situations to the brokers on the other end. I tried to paint the picture of the exact
kind of desperate person who should not take out a payday loan,
then listen carefully as the half-dozen different payday lending companies talked me into it.
The story was eye-opening, and after the piece was published, it actually ended up being cited by Congress
in a call for universities and retirement plans to divest from payday lending services.
I left the experience of reporting the piece feeling like there was a
need for agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and I was rather impressed
with some of the work they were doing. I say all this just to share my own personal experience and
bias as I look at this story. I believe the CFPB's work is valuable and important. Does that mean it
never oversteps or overregulates? Of course not. You heard from Patrick Brenner earlier in this podcast,
and he made a very good argument
that the CFP's recent rule against comparison websites
was a major overreach.
But on net, I think it's an agency
that genuinely looks out for working class,
middle class, and lower income Americans
who are most often the victims
of predatory financial practices.
That it survived this court challenge is a testament to how well the legislation was written, and the outcome will
surely add to Senator Elizabeth Warren's reputation as a policy wonk. Of course, the value of the CFPB's
work has nothing to do with the constitutionality of its funding, which is what this case was about.
So, I'm trying hard to leave my bias about the CFPB
at the door here, but I do think the 7-2 ruling was the right outcome. Justice Elena Kagan hunched
what I thought was the cleanest hole in the argument from the plaintiffs. Spending that
does not require periodic appropriations accounts for nearly two-thirds of the federal budget,
programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the idea that
all this funding has somehow been unconstitutional for over a century is hard to buttress with any
serious historical argument. As Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, since our nation's
founding, we've understood that Congress can appropriate the use of public funds. The Federal
Reserve is a source of public funding, and Congress authorized it to fund
CFPB. Congress can always revise that, which serves as the oversight, but it isn't unconstitutional.
Even Brenner, in his appearance on the podcast, conceded that this ruling looked right to him,
though he's hopeful a future president or Congress will dissolve the CFPB.
For critics of the CFPB like Brenner, though, there is some silver lining here.
This ruling could bring attention to possible avenues for reforming the agency's funding
mechanism. And the CFPB's opponents are indeed getting to work in the legislative arena,
with two bills already floated in Congress to address some of the concerns about the CFPB.
On top of spurring some reform and just sounding like a more defensible interpretation of the concerns about the CFPB. On top of spurring some reform and just sounding like a
more defensible interpretation of the Constitution, the ruling is good for other reasons. For one,
it brought together an unusual coalition of justices at a time when the court is facing
political controversies about its bias. Two, it balances a recent trend of the court restricting
the reach of federal agencies, reinforcing the idea that it
isn't going to undercut federal agencies unless it has strong cause to. With that context, I'm
heartened that the court clearly stated that the structure or purpose of any agency is not going
to be judicially undermined if Congress writes clean legislation to clearly authorize it.
Hopefully, lawmakers will take the cue, stop expansively interpreting agency power,
and draft more legislation that can withstand challenges like this one.
We'll be right back after this quick break.
All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered.
This one's from an anonymous reader in Columbia, Missouri, who said,
is Tangle going to cover the commencement speech made by Harrison Butker? Okay, well,
this story is a little bit on the culture war side of things for us to want to touch it.
But at the same time, it is
generating a good bit of buzz, and I do have some thoughts. So, while we wouldn't devote an entire
Tangle edition to Butker's address, I am glad you asked this question. To catch those of you up who
didn't know, Harrison Butker is the kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, and he's also an outspoken
Catholic. Last week, he gave the commencement address at Benedictine College,
a Catholic liberal arts school in Kansas. His address ended up sparking hundreds of headlines
and lots of controversy. First, as a commencement address, I'll concede that I thought it started
out pretty divisive. Bunker used exactly the kind of rhetoric that divides us politically and
culturally, criticizing the sitting president for ushering in, quote, degenerate cultural values, end quote, a broad
jab similar to what many conservatives and moderates rightly found so distasteful when
celebrities were speaking out against Trump during his presidency. That's fine as a political speech,
but I just don't think a commencement address is time for that. Further, I was surprised to see
that he told the audience that you're not truly Catholic if you think that you can be both Catholic
and pro-choice when the majority of Catholics hold some pro-choice views. So I'm not surprised
by the pushback to this speech, and I think some of the criticisms are well-founded. Second,
as a cultural statement, I really don't think this was a big
deal at all. The main thrust of Butker's speech was about how Catholic values are built to thrive
in the modern world and to implore graduates to be courageous and outspoken about those values.
Mainly, Butker is getting criticized for telling the women in the audience to be willing to embrace
being stay-at-home mothers, crediting his success in football to his wife embracing faith as well as one of the most important titles a woman could
have, quote, homemaker. But that's a perfectly legitimate and mainstream conservative view,
and the line, by the way, was followed by 18 seconds of applause. Third, as a statement about
his views, I thought the points drawing the most criticism were both consistent with the theme of his speech and appropriate for the audience he was addressing.
Bucker said it was a moral duty to speak out against abortion, but he also told graduates
that they should have the courage to speak up about issues they consider to be truly Catholic.
While opinions on being pro-choice vary, the Catholic Church clearly opposes it,
so Bucker is right that this is the Catholic position.
The same is true for IVF, which he called playing God with having children.
Again, that might seem fringe to some Americans, but the Catholic Church more or less agrees
with him.
So, to summarize, an outspoken Catholic gave a speech championing Catholic values at a
Catholic university,
received a positive response from those in attendance, and then a bunch of non-Catholics
and liberals got really upset. It's all kind of silly. And I think that's the big takeaway.
This might have been an inappropriate secular speech at a secular university, but it wasn't
a secular speech or a secular graduating class, and he shouldn't be criticized
as if it was. Some are raking him over the coals for calling Taylor Swift his teammate's girlfriend,
but that was clearly a joke, though he should be getting a little flack for attributing a
Chaucer quote to her. In context, and with the Biden statements aside, I thought this was a
total non-story, and the people petitioning for him to lose his job
are acting pretty unhinged. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it
back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one.
Thanks, Isaac, and here is your Under the Radar story for today, folks.
For over two decades, the U.S. has presumed that al-Qaeda acted alone on 9-11 and has crafted
foreign policy in the Middle East accordingly. But a growing body of evidence suggests that
understanding is wrong. And a new lawsuit brought by the families of 9-11 victims alleges that al-Qaeda
had not just significant but decisive support from the Saudi government. The 71-page document
was released in a redacted form earlier this month, summarizing support from the Saudi government. The 71-page document was released in
a redacted form earlier this month, summarizing the evidence the plaintiffs have gathered in
discovery proceedings and through recently declassified materials. The Atlantic has this
story and there's a link in today's episode description.
All right, next up is our numbers section. The estimated number of consumers or consumer accounts eligible to receive relief from the
CFPB's enforcement and supervisory work is 205 million.
The approximate amount of civil penalties imposed by the CFPB on companies and individuals
for violating the law is 4.8 billion.
The number of public enforcement actions filed by the CFPB in 2015 is 56, the highest in the agency's history.
The number of public enforcement actions filed by the CFPB in 2023 is 29.
The approximate number of consumers whose records were illicitly transferred to a personal email account by a former CFPB employee in March of 2023 was 256,000.
was 256,000. The percentage of Americans who said they approved of increased government regulation of banks and major financial institutions in 2010, shortly after the Dodd-Frank Act was signed
into law, is 61%, according to Gallup. And the percentage of U.S. voters who said they support
the mission of the CFPB in 2022 was 79%, according to a poll from Lake Research Partners.
was 79%, according to a poll from Lake Research Partners.
And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story.
Andrew Deary is a 24-year-old with autism who is looking to find a job.
His father, John, saw him struggling and had an idea for how to help.
Along with Andrew's older brother, John founded the Rising Tide Car Wash as a way to help Andrew and others like him find work.
Now, Rising Tide employs 80 people with autism over two locations in the Parkland, Florida area.
Typically, people with autism are really good at structured tasks, following processes,
and attention to detail. So we saw that there are really important skills that people with
autism have that make them, in some cases, the best employees you can have, John said.
NDTV has the story,
and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's
episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up
for a membership. And as Isaac said at the top here, we have a new YouTube video out. Isaac and
Will went down to the University of Pennsylvania during the campus protests just before it was shut down and got some footage and interviews with some of the protesters and counter protesters there.
It's a very compelling video.
In order for the YouTube algorithm to recommend it to other non-Tangle viewers and just anybody out there who's watching videos on YouTube,
it needs to get a strong push in the beginning. So we are asking, if you could, go over, watch that video, comment, like, subscribe, all those things help push the algorithm, and send it out to people
who don't know about Tangle. So in a very simple and extremely helpful way, you are helping spread
the word about Tangle simply by watching and supporting the video. So head over there to YouTube. There's a link in the episode description.
And that's it for today. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew,
this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace.
Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Law. Peace. for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website.
Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, Thanks for watching! and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.
The flu remains a serious disease.
Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada,
which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases.
What can you do this flu season?
Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.
Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.
It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older,
and it may be available for free in your province.
Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.
Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.