Shocker! Scalia Sides With the Court Liberals, Says States Can Enforce Own Banking Laws
By Susie Madrak Tuesday Jun 30, 2009 4:00pmCould it be true? Is the sky falling? Did Tony Scalia really just side with the liberals in a major case? (Legal explanation here.)
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.
The ruling angered many in the financial sector, who fear it'll lead to a patchwork of state laws that'll make it harder for banks and other financial firms to take a national approach to the marketplace.
Poor babies. My heart just bleeds for them. Why, it might make it even harder to throw 84-year-old widows out onto the street!
"We are worried about the effect that this ruling could have on the markets," said Rich Whiting, general counsel for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group representing the nation's 100 largest financial firms, in a statement. The decision "hinders the ability of financial services firms from conducting business in the United States. Even worse, it will cause confusion for consumers, especially those who move from state to state."
Oh, the markets! The sky is falling! Quick, throw the banks some money to help! Oh wait, we tried that already...
Stephen Ryan, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, said the decision "will have a significant, negative impact on the ability of a national bank to offer a financial product uniformly throughout the country."
In a statement, Ryan, who's brought suits against state enforcement, predicted "a crazy quilt of conflicting legal instructions" and a "confusing situation of shared enforcement responsibilities for financial services."
Ha ha ha! Mr. Ryan, have you ever read the small print on an adjustable rate mortgage?
But wait, apparently it's not as bad as the banks claim:
Some of the industry's allies said yesterday's decision is hardly disastrous for banks, given that state officials will not have the power to demand documents or compel executives to submit to questioning without a court order.
"Obviously there's going to be some additional burden on the big banks," said Seth Galanter, of counsel at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, who filed a brief on behalf of former comptrollers of the currency. "But civil litigation has always been available to private parties. This just adds state attorneys general to the list of groups that can sue."
Login or Register to post comments.
Ol' "States Rights" Scalia. Too bad he didn't have this epiphany when they were mulling over the medical cannabis laws.
Hypocrite.
and note how the rest of the supposed states rights wingnut fucks held with the fed
christ...not one of them belongs on the highest court in the land
ive gotta read thomas' decision....bet it is a doozy
What little writing he's done has been outstandingly less than impressive - kind of mind-boggling to think that he actually WROTE a decision, even if it is a dissenting decision.
This opinion to me signals retirement thoughts by Scalia. Or a return from the dark side.
I could live with either one. We need some honest conservatives...
The opposition from the banks isn't about concern over "patchwork of laws". It's about trying to hang on to a de-regulated system for as long as possible. Tuff noogies, guys! If you hadn't been so f***ing greedy, you wouldn't have to worry about "burdensome" laws and regulations now. You've proven that you are incapable of regulating yourselves.
(Coming to and getting up off the floor.....)
ARGUABLY the most conservative jurist?? ARGUABLY the most conservative jurist?????
What the hell is arguable about that?! That fucker is the most conservative jurist IN THE LAST HALF-CENTURY!!
And doubly shocking: not only did Scalia's lap dog Thomas vote against his boss, he ACTUALLY WROTE AN OPINION!!
I'm goin' to da track tonight and bet me lots of money on the long shots.......
Because with odds like these being beaten, surely I can beat the odds on Powerball, right?
Scalia has always had a rebellious streak. Even when he assents (is that the word?), he often issues his own opinions. The fact is, he's very "states' rights," although usually just when it suits his ideology.
He also agreed to several dumbass opinions this week, so it isn't like he's suddenly come to his senses or anything. He still has that "fuck you" attitude in his decision-making process (as the photo attests to).
As for retirement, I doubt he's going anywhere. Like most other SCOTUS judges (and unlike Sutter), they'll probably have to carry him out. Say what we will about them, they love their jobs.
I volunteer to carry that asshole out on my back and across the country if he'll leave!!
Ever seen that picture of him on safari--or whatever--with Ginsburg? They're riding elephants. Maybe we can get him to leave with the circus when it comes to town.
I'll be glad to shoot him out of a cannon. (Thomas will go with him via his leash.)
if the United States falls apart as long as there are obedient slaves and workers willing to do anything.
The final firewall of fascism, is just one conservative SCOTUS justice away from crumbling.
...they've definitely got age in their favor.
You're right; we need Stephens and Ginsburg to retire so they can be replaced by liberal judges, hopefully some young fire-breathers.
Problem is, Obama's lost my trust. I'm afraid he'll just pick some center-right judges, striving for "bipartisanship," And we'll end up with more of the same crap.
Looks like he's giving us the "va fongul" sign - literally.
Ricci v. New Haven and this case, regarding... discrimination?
It may be just words... though I find them interesting nonetheless.
..."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."
[states can enforce their own laws on matters such as discrimination]
Didn't they just overrule CT's decision? This sounds good, but I don't know the differences. :-/ Help!
Ricci v. New Haven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
He concluded that "once [a] process has been established and employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee’s legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race. Doing so, absent a strong basis in evidence of an impermissible disparate impact, amounts to the sort of racial preference that Congress has disclaimed, §2000e–2(j), and is antithetical to the notion of a workplace where individuals are guaranteed equal opportunity regardless of race."
It's a 14th amendment case and a civil rights case.
----
In the case of Cuomo V. Clearing House Association, it doesn't appear to be a race case. Rather the issue was "Whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's regulation 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000, which interprets 12 U.S.C. §484(a) of the National Bank Act to preempt state enforcement of state laws against national banks even when the state laws are not substantively preempted...".
Now, the attorney general for NY wanted to investigate lending practices to see if they were race based, but the issue was confined to whether the Comptroller could relieve the attorney general of jurisdiction, as far as I can see. This case does not address whether civil rights criteria is being applied correctly, and in accordance with the civil rights act and 14th amendment. It looks like a jurisdiction case only.
I don't see this case as one of those "social issues" cases separating "liberal" versus "conservative".
NoBuddy. I believe the word [discrimination] threw me off. Whereas in the "Ricci v. New Haven" decision, discrimination was found to have taken place bearing on an individual(s) rights... so they simply overruled the lower court(s). A remedy was not offered, just that the State of CT and New Haven was incorrect with their handling of the case. So now that the act was deemed unlawful, a couple things could happen, that I foresee.
The firefighters may obtain the position(s) accordingly, w/back-pay or the state can terminate the position(s) as no longer needed, and payout some type of state regulated "Capped" settlement to the respective individual(s) in an attempt to somehow make them whole. The State will then, make a just test, in hopes of getting better overall results, from all participants?
And
The other was basically a jurisdictional issue regarding State(s) rights?
So one was a [Individual(s) right(s)] and one was a [State(s) right(s)] issue... is that fairly accurate?
Do you think the dissenter(s) in the later case were in favor of a power grab, from a jurisdictional viewpoint? In any case thanks again for your time. √
The damage this right wing activist judge has done to this country far outweighs this decision. somebody must have laced his canoli.
√
The headline should be Scalia sides with Centrist Judges.
There is not one progressive/liberal on the supreme court. The middle of the road judges are just considered liberal compared to the nut jobs on the extreme right.....Just like in the media, when Rachel maddow is supposed to offset pat buchanan
That "honor" falls to Thomas, unless one (understandably) considers him not so much conservative as insane. Even Scalia considers Thomas a kook.
So, if you want to use a standard political spectrum, the "liberals" are really centrists, while the conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) are extremely conservative, and Kennedy, the "moderate," is merely very conservative.
If you modify the spectrum to take Thomas' insanity into account, then the "liberals" are still centrists, the conservatives are still extremely conservative, Kennedy is still very conservative, and Thomas is stark, raving mad. This seems the more accurate reading.
but come on...the minority are the right thinkers
the current majority are nothing but fascist pigs
Lost in the media world of Michael Jackson, Billy Mays, and Sanford's girl from Ipanema, this was an incredibly huge decision. It was originally filed by Spitzer, but allows states to prosecute lending institutions without the interference of K St.
And it may signify Scalia breaking from the herd. Rush will call for an apology any day now.
Scalia occasionally follows the law.
Well, ok, it's a shocker if your philosophy depends on Antonin Scalia being the devil. But it's really not that unique if you've been paying attention the past decade or so.
Personally, Scalia still drives me crazy. He's usually wrong, and he's snotty, but he's also a very good writer and has bursts of conscience that other conservative judges don't have when asked by a criminal defendant to decide what the constitution really says.
Besides this case, just last week he sided with the liberals and wrote the opinion finding that lab technicians in criminal cases had to be presented and cross examined. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to confront adverse witnesses, he reasoned, well, lab technicians are adverse witnesses. That ruling (Melendez-Diaz) extended the huge case from 5 years ago that excluded almost all hearsay evidence from criminal prosecutions. That case was Crawford v. Washington, prosecutors hate it and, again, Scalia wrote it.
On the fourth amendment, Scalia has often been more willing than the liberal side to say, hey, an illegal search is an illegal search. In Gant, earlier this year, he and Thomas sided with the majority (and Breyer defected to the conservatives) in deciding that police can't search a suspect's car without a warrant whenever they make an arrest.
Say what you like about his fetish with original intent -- and, again, I usually think he's wrong -- it does sometimes lead him to have more respect for the 4th and 6th amendments than his more liberal, and too often predictably pro-police, peers.
I think it's great someone here looked into a case on state police powers in banking regulation, but if what you found made you think the world was ending, you'd only be more surprised the closer you look . Not surprised always, or even often, but enough to realize the selection of the appropriate left/right bumpersticker isn't the answer to every legal question.
I very seldom agree with where Scalia ends up, but at least he generally makes sense. In legal terms, anyway. He can articulate his line of reasoning, so that most of the time, even when I disagree with him, I can see how he arrived at his conclusion.
I just wish he would use that analytical power and massive intellect for good instead of evil LOL
Clearly the apocolypse is nigh
Give me a break. The argument from the banks is "our jobs will be harder." Weak. In the entertainment industry we have to deal with several different state rules for film tax incentives. It would be a lot easier if there were a federal statute on the issue, but that's not going to happen and you just need to suck it up and adapt.
Once someone is appointed, they can actually focus on thinking about the decisions they are making.
I thought these bankers were so smart. Much smarter than me or you.
They shouldn't have any problem with some silly little regulations. I mean, they understand "the market" in ways you or I could never imagine. They know how to make money without adding any value.
Something about this man gives me the creeps...& crawly skin....just...simply...dirty ugly...nasty...
"Shocker! Scalia Sides With the Court Liberals, Says States Can Enforce Own Banking Laws"
Or you could say that the Liberals sided with a states-rights' conservative.
He is feeling bad about appointing shit for brains and his evil sidekick that ruined the country?
Could a conservative be getting a conscience?
Did he get directly screwed by the republican take over and ruining of our country?
It is a shock to think that a republican would follow the constitution.
All we ever see from them is dirty dealing, selfishness, greed, and amoral behavior.
Oh my god could he be in the process of becomming a democrat?
Honesty and fairness are not traits you place on republicans.
republicanism is a mental illness!
Sounds like this just preserves the status quo that existed until the Booosh Administration filed and won their suit in the lower courts. Geez, now these guys running the banks can no longer have Carte Blanche to ruin lives and enrich themselves as served to them on a platter by Booosh and his merry band of thieves. My heart pumps piss for them.
Scalia lost a ton of money in the Bush economy and he wants to punish the secondary perpetrators...IMHO
Not so shocking.
States' rights is a conservative position.
It's actually more accurate to say that it's a shock that liberal (or at least, less conservative) justices sided with a states' rights conservative.
Look I shed a single tear. Too bad in this right to work state I have been born and raised in the Gop will not push hard against the lenders and banks.
Seriously the Big Boys in this proved that they can't control themselves again (what is this the 10th time or something like that). Left to there own devices they will create fictional money, Rob the country blind, destroys any advancement for the rest of us, and that's just some of the things they will do.
Private business can't control themselves; they never have been able to and never will. Greed has to be controlled period.
It seems to me that he was considerably miffed when G.W.Bush stepped completely around him and named Roberts as Chief Justice.
Recall that Roberts was originally just a simple replacement for O'Connor, but then Rhenquist died and that gave him two slots, for which he upgraded his Roberts nomination.
Maybe, just maybe, Scalia isn't the crazed right wing nut job that Thomas and Alito are. One thing for sure, Scalia is a very, very intelligent jurist and is quite well versed. Wrong most the time, but well versed.
Login or Register to post comments.