English Told To Pack Up Her Shit And Vacate Her Office At CFPB

[iceberg]

He will boot her out forthwith. No reason to keep her.

Scrape the infection from the bone wherever found.

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

He will give her the boot toot-suite. She opposed and interfered with his legitimate authority. Watch and learn.

And we all know, Not to love the Furher is a grave mistake, so we heil,(raspberry), heil(raspberry), right in der Fuhrer's face..

She's a full blown Leftist. Why should those diametrically opposed to the Constitution be permitted to hold office?

Clear them out.

One cannot be fired for their party affiliation.

maybe not but you can sure sick the IRS on them for that.

 

[Darkwind]

He will boot her out forthwith. No reason to keep her.

Scrape the infection from the bone wherever found.

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

She CAN be fired for insubordination.

For following the law?

Clearly, she wasn't as evidenced by the ruling.

 

[bripat9643]

For the departing director to have been able to appoint her she would have had to be deputy director for at least 90 days prior to that appointment. She was appointed deputy director only a few days before his resignation.


NOV 24, 2017
SHARE THIS



WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced that Leandra English has been officially named deputy director of the agency. English, who had been most recently serving as the agency’s chief of staff, has previously held key leadership positions at the CFPB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. David Silberman, who had been serving as acting deputy director, will continue in his role as associate director of the Research, Markets, and Regulations division.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

• US Code
• Notes
• Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office—
made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or
employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if—
employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and
position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

From Harvard when the agency was created-

Thus, when the President exer- cises his appointment power every five years, it will have a more powerful impact on the shape of the Bureau than if the Bureau had a multimember board
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol12408_recentlegislation.pdf

Thus the executive branch has control over the appointment of its director. When the director resigned, it then became under the President s authority to appoint a new director, acting or not. The director, if absent for short periods of time, could relegate his duties to someone to act in his behalf- not due to resignation.

That is a question for the courts to answer, and I don't think you should be so confident that they'll see it that way.

There's no question that Trump has the power to appoint the director - with confirmation by the Senate, of course - but the question of who becomes acting director in the interim is not so clear.

You're reading that law wrong - and it's also irrelevant, since the statute creating CFPB itself includes language determining the succession of temporary directors.

Which is unconstitutional.
Guess this is another Democrat boondoggle that's gonna eat shit in the Supreme Court.

[emoji38]

No, it's not "unconstitutional" - in fact, it's standard operating procedure in nearly every federal agency.

It certainly is not.

Here's your second lesson in civics for today....

They don't need to repeal Dodd-Frank to get rid of the CFPB, Congress can and often does introduce and pass legislation that alters existing legislation and the Republicrat Congress Critters are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the CFPB; last time I checked they held the majority in both houses along with a President that isn't fond of the CFPB either.

[emoji38]

Are you sure about that?

LOL, Yeah I'm sure that Congress can and often does enact legislation that alters existing legislation and I'm sure that the Republicrat Congress Critters and President Twitter are overwhelmingly opposed to the CFPB.

How come the Senate hasn't brought the "CHOICE" act up yet, then?

Civics lesson #3...

The Senate has a filibuster mechanism, the HoR doesn't and a full blown repeal of Dodd-Frank wouldn't get past a filibuster, however components, like eliminating the CFPB can since it can be attached to other legislation and traded for items that are higher on the Democrats priority list, like for example DACA protections.

You got any other softballs in that tiny bag of yours or are you done?

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Probably something to do with the fact that you're attempting to manufacture an argument with seemingly little to no understanding as to how the legislative process works to counter an argument I didn't even make; I advocated for the elimination of the CFBP, I didn't say that it WOULD happen, I indicated that it's POSSIBLE under normal order.

I'm not saying that Congress can't pass legislation to "alter" existing legislation

Good, apparently my civics lessons in this thread weren't in vain.

- I'm saying that they don't have the votes to do what you claim they should.

It hasn't even been attempted yet, so you have no idea whether or not they have the votes to eliminate the CFPB.

[emoji38]

As you pointed out, the Republicans hold majorities in both houses. The fact that they haven't attempted it already implies fairly strongly that they don't have the votes for it.

As for all the mindless blather you've added to your posts in a weak attempt to look smart - you're not impressing anyone, kid.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[mudwhistle]

For the departing director to have been able to appoint her she would have had to be deputy director for at least 90 days prior to that appointment. She was appointed deputy director only a few days before his resignation.


NOV 24, 2017
SHARE THIS



WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced that Leandra English has been officially named deputy director of the agency. English, who had been most recently serving as the agency’s chief of staff, has previously held key leadership positions at the CFPB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. David Silberman, who had been serving as acting deputy director, will continue in his role as associate director of the Research, Markets, and Regulations division.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

• US Code
• Notes
• Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office—
made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or
employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if—
employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and
position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

From Harvard when the agency was created-

Thus, when the President exer- cises his appointment power every five years, it will have a more powerful impact on the shape of the Bureau than if the Bureau had a multimember board
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol12408_recentlegislation.pdf

Thus the executive branch has control over the appointment of its director. When the director resigned, it then became under the President s authority to appoint a new director, acting or not. The director, if absent for short periods of time, could relegate his duties to someone to act in his behalf- not due to resignation.

That is a question for the courts to answer, and I don't think you should be so confident that they'll see it that way.

There's no question that Trump has the power to appoint the director - with confirmation by the Senate, of course - but the question of who becomes acting director in the interim is not so clear.

You're reading that law wrong - and it's also irrelevant, since the statute creating CFPB itself includes language determining the succession of temporary directors.

Which is unconstitutional.
Guess this is another Democrat boondoggle that's gonna eat shit in the Supreme Court.

No, it's not "unconstitutional" - in fact, it's standard operating procedure in nearly every federal agency.

Sure it is.
But it's still unconstitutional.
Guess we're going to see, if the Democrats persist.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He will boot her out forthwith. No reason to keep her.

Scrape the infection from the bone wherever found.

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

She CAN be fired for insubordination.

For following the law?

Clearly, she wasn't as evidenced by the ruling.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but no "ruling" has actually occurred.

The judge rejected a preliminary restraining order. He did not "rule" on the case.

That comes later. As of now, it's still up in the air.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

For the departing director to have been able to appoint her she would have had to be deputy director for at least 90 days prior to that appointment. She was appointed deputy director only a few days before his resignation.


NOV 24, 2017
SHARE THIS



WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced that Leandra English has been officially named deputy director of the agency. English, who had been most recently serving as the agency’s chief of staff, has previously held key leadership positions at the CFPB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. David Silberman, who had been serving as acting deputy director, will continue in his role as associate director of the Research, Markets, and Regulations division.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

• US Code
• Notes
• Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office—
made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or
employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if—
employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and
position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

That is a question for the courts to answer, and I don't think you should be so confident that they'll see it that way.

There's no question that Trump has the power to appoint the director - with confirmation by the Senate, of course - but the question of who becomes acting director in the interim is not so clear.

You're reading that law wrong - and it's also irrelevant, since the statute creating CFPB itself includes language determining the succession of temporary directors.

Which is unconstitutional.
Guess this is another Democrat boondoggle that's gonna eat shit in the Supreme Court.

No, it's not "unconstitutional" - in fact, it's standard operating procedure in nearly every federal agency.

Sure it is.
But it's still unconstitutional.
Guess we're going to see, if the Democrats persist.

Why do you believe that it is "unconstitutional" for deputies to act as interim directors?

 

[Darkwind]

He will boot her out forthwith. No reason to keep her.

Scrape the infection from the bone wherever found.

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

She CAN be fired for insubordination.

For following the law?

Clearly, she wasn't as evidenced by the ruling.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but no "ruling" has actually occurred.

The judge rejected a preliminary restraining order. He did not "rule" on the case.

That comes later. As of now, it's still up in the air.

Not really. The judge found no evidence for her to restrain the acting director from taking control of the agency. In other words, her attempt to restrain a lawful assignment failed. She is now insubordinate if she fails to accept his authority.

 

[mudwhistle]

For the departing director to have been able to appoint her she would have had to be deputy director for at least 90 days prior to that appointment. She was appointed deputy director only a few days before his resignation.


NOV 24, 2017
SHARE THIS



WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced that Leandra English has been officially named deputy director of the agency. English, who had been most recently serving as the agency’s chief of staff, has previously held key leadership positions at the CFPB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. David Silberman, who had been serving as acting deputy director, will continue in his role as associate director of the Research, Markets, and Regulations division.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

• US Code
• Notes
• Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office—
made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or
employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if—
employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and
position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.

5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer

You're reading that law wrong - and it's also irrelevant, since the statute creating CFPB itself includes language determining the succession of temporary directors.

Which is unconstitutional.
Guess this is another Democrat boondoggle that's gonna eat shit in the Supreme Court.

No, it's not "unconstitutional" - in fact, it's standard operating procedure in nearly every federal agency.

Sure it is.
But it's still unconstitutional.
Guess we're going to see, if the Democrats persist.

Why do you believe that it is "unconstitutional" for deputies to act as interim directors?

That's not the issue. An appeals court ruled it vests too much power in the director.

What Will Happen to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

 

[NightFox]

Here's your second lesson in civics for today....

They don't need to repeal Dodd-Frank to get rid of the CFPB, Congress can and often does introduce and pass legislation that alters existing legislation and the Republicrat Congress Critters are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the CFPB; last time I checked they held the majority in both houses along with a President that isn't fond of the CFPB either.

Are you sure about that?

LOL, Yeah I'm sure that Congress can and often does enact legislation that alters existing legislation and I'm sure that the Republicrat Congress Critters and President Twitter are overwhelmingly opposed to the CFPB.

How come the Senate hasn't brought the "CHOICE" act up yet, then?

Civics lesson #3...

The Senate has a filibuster mechanism, the HoR doesn't and a full blown repeal of Dodd-Frank wouldn't get past a filibuster, however components, like eliminating the CFPB can since it can be attached to other legislation and traded for items that are higher on the Democrats priority list, like for example DACA protections.

You got any other softballs in that tiny bag of yours or are you done?

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Probably something to do with the fact that you're attempting to manufacture an argument with seemingly little to no understanding as to how the legislative process works to counter an argument I didn't even make; I advocated for the elimination of the CFBP, I didn't say that it WOULD happen, I indicated that it's POSSIBLE under normal order.

I'm not saying that Congress can't pass legislation to "alter" existing legislation

Good, apparently my civics lessons in this thread weren't in vain.

- I'm saying that they don't have the votes to do what you claim they should.

It hasn't even been attempted yet, so you have no idea whether or not they have the votes to eliminate the CFPB.

As you pointed out, the Republicans hold majorities in both houses. The fact that they haven't attempted it already implies fairly strongly that they don't have the votes for it.

Ummm.. unless you're simpleton it doesn't mean any such thing, Congress operates on a legislative agenda that is prioritized by both politics and targets of opportunity.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the legislative process.

As for all the mindless blather you've added to your posts in a weak attempt to look smart - you're not impressing anyone, kid.

LOL, It's always amusing when a poster gets so thoroughly trounced in an argument that they're left with nothing but vapid attempts at invective to respond with.

..at least you managed not to swallow your own tongue this time, so I guess that's progress.

Ciao

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

She CAN be fired for insubordination.

For following the law?

Clearly, she wasn't as evidenced by the ruling.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but no "ruling" has actually occurred.

The judge rejected a preliminary restraining order. He did not "rule" on the case.

That comes later. As of now, it's still up in the air.

Not really. The judge found no evidence for her to restrain the acting director from taking control of the agency. In other words, her attempt to restrain a lawful assignment failed. She is now insubordinate if she fails to accept his authority.

That's not what happened.

The judge did not make any evidentiary claims, because no trial has occurred yet. He rejected her request for a prelimiary injunction.

This isn't over. It's only just started.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you sure about that?

LOL, Yeah I'm sure that Congress can and often does enact legislation that alters existing legislation and I'm sure that the Republicrat Congress Critters and President Twitter are overwhelmingly opposed to the CFPB.

How come the Senate hasn't brought the "CHOICE" act up yet, then?

Civics lesson #3...

The Senate has a filibuster mechanism, the HoR doesn't and a full blown repeal of Dodd-Frank wouldn't get past a filibuster, however components, like eliminating the CFPB can since it can be attached to other legislation and traded for items that are higher on the Democrats priority list, like for example DACA protections.

You got any other softballs in that tiny bag of yours or are you done?

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Probably something to do with the fact that you're attempting to manufacture an argument with seemingly little to no understanding as to how the legislative process works to counter an argument I didn't even make; I advocated for the elimination of the CFBP, I didn't say that it WOULD happen, I indicated that it's POSSIBLE under normal order.

I'm not saying that Congress can't pass legislation to "alter" existing legislation

Good, apparently my civics lessons in this thread weren't in vain.

- I'm saying that they don't have the votes to do what you claim they should.

It hasn't even been attempted yet, so you have no idea whether or not they have the votes to eliminate the CFPB.

As you pointed out, the Republicans hold majorities in both houses. The fact that they haven't attempted it already implies fairly strongly that they don't have the votes for it.

Ummm.. unless you're simpleton it doesn't mean any such thing, Congress operates on a legislative agenda that is prioritized by both politics and targets of opportunity.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the legislative process.

As for all the mindless blather you've added to your posts in a weak attempt to look smart - you're not impressing anyone, kid.

LOL, It's always amusing when a poster gets so thoroughly trounced in an argument that they're left with nothing but vapid attempts at invective to respond with.

..at least you managed not to swallow your own tongue this time, so I guess that's progress.

Ciao

If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that you've "won" something here, then who am I to argue with you?

You are welcome to knock down whatever strawmen you need to for your self-esteem, it's not going to change anything.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're reading that law wrong - and it's also irrelevant, since the statute creating CFPB itself includes language determining the succession of temporary directors.

Which is unconstitutional.
Guess this is another Democrat boondoggle that's gonna eat shit in the Supreme Court.

No, it's not "unconstitutional" - in fact, it's standard operating procedure in nearly every federal agency.

Sure it is.
But it's still unconstitutional.
Guess we're going to see, if the Democrats persist.

Why do you believe that it is "unconstitutional" for deputies to act as interim directors?

That's not the issue. An appeals court ruled it vests too much power in the director.

What Will Happen to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

That is a seperate, and unrelated issue to the topic of this thread.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

He will boot her out forthwith. No reason to keep her.

Scrape the infection from the bone wherever found.

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

She CAN be fired for insubordination.

For following the law?

Clearly, she wasn't as evidenced by the ruling.

It is far from over.

 

[Meathead]

He will boot her out forthwith. No reason to keep her.

Scrape the infection from the bone wherever found.

Actually, he cannot fire her. She is not a political appointee, she is a federal employee and cannot be given "the boot" just because of her political affiliation.

She's a goner Gator. The gutters are strewn with the political corpses of those who opposed the Donald.

 

[Meathead]

Which is unconstitutional.
Guess this is another Democrat boondoggle that's gonna eat shit in the Supreme Court.

No, it's not "unconstitutional" - in fact, it's standard operating procedure in nearly every federal agency.

Sure it is.
But it's still unconstitutional.
Guess we're going to see, if the Democrats persist.

Why do you believe that it is "unconstitutional" for deputies to act as interim directors?

That's not the issue. An appeals court ruled it vests too much power in the director.

What Will Happen to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

That is a seperate, and unrelated issue to the topic of this thread.

Seriously?! You don't take losing well but we already knew that. None of your ilk do.

 

[bripat9643]

They can unless the president appoints one. The Dims believe the former director gets to appoint his replacement, which is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They can unless the president appoints one. The Dims believe the former director gets to appoint his replacement, which is clearly unconstitutional.

The President can certainly appoint a new director - with the advise and consent of the Senate.

Until the Senate approves that appointment, according to the statute, the deputy director is appointed interim director.

 

[Defiant1]

Yeah... Big Banks can cheat us again!!!

Uh, hooray, I guess...

Caveat Emptor

 

[SassyIrishLass]

She may as well quit. She's now toothless

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Get the fuck out, bitch!!! Court Rules with POTUS TRUMP – Tells Far Left Hack to Clear Contents of Her Office into Box and Evacuate the Premises

Court Rules with POTUS TRUMP – Tells Far Left Hack to Clear Contents of Her Office into Box and Evacuate the Premises
by Jim Hoft 176 Comments

Recent Trump appointee ruled today in favor of President Trump and rejected a lawsuit from an official who claims that she, and not President Trump appointee Mick Mulvaney, is the rightful director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia refused to grant Leandra English a restraining order to bar Mulvaney from serving as the CFPB’s acting director.


English, a committed leftist, sued the Trump administration to lead the far left CFPB bureaucracy. She did not realize Donald Trump won the election in 2016.

Judge Kelly had a different opinion.

​

The CFPB is nothing more than a money laundering scheme to rob banks of cash and turn it over to leftist groups like Planned-Parenthood.

Now fire her ass.........yeah!