Scalia breaks ranks, slams Bush officials on bank regulation

[dbackjon]

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.

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

[dbackjon]

Interesting - Scalia, plus the four liberals, voted for state's rights, while the four other conservatives voted for supressing state's rights...

[Col Hogan]

Interesting - Scalia, plus the four liberals, voted for state's rights, while the four other conservatives voted for supressing state's rights...

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

[Cap'n Cat]

Interesting - Scalia, plus the four liberals, voted for state's rights, while the four other conservatives voted for supressing state's rights...

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

I don't know where they are, but it ain't hard to see the blind Conk apologist fvck in the crowd.

[OL FU]

Interesting - Scalia, plus the four liberals, voted for state's rights, while the four other conservatives voted for supressing state's rights...

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

I am certainly not one of those but I can't remember the constitution mentioning banking per se. Even if it does I also don't remember anything from preventing the states from regulating lending practices of banks.

Most of you probably don't remember but at one time in our history ( not that long ago) banks were specific to a particular state. If you banked at Bof A in South Carolina and made a trip to North Carolina and wanted to make a deposit, too bad. You can presently but in the past the accounts were totally seperate by state.

[Cap'n Cat]

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

I am certainly not one of those but I can't remember the constitution mentioning banking per se. Even if it does I also don't remember anything from preventing the states from regulating lending practices of banks.

Most of you probably don't remember but at one time in our history ( not that long ago) banks were specific to a particular state. If you banked at Bof A in South Carolina and made a trip to North Carolina and wanted to make a deposit, too bad. You can presently but in the past the accounts were totally seperate by state.

Um, did anyone ask you for your opinion?

[OL FU]

I am certainly not one of those but I can't remember the constitution mentioning banking per se. Even if it does I also don't remember anything from preventing the states from regulating lending practices of banks.

Most of you probably don't remember but at one time in our history ( not that long ago) banks were specific to a particular state. If you banked at Bof A in South Carolina and made a trip to North Carolina and wanted to make a deposit, too bad. You can presently but in the past the accounts were totally seperate by state.

Um, did anyone ask you for your opinion?

Any body ever tell you that you're a fat ass

[dbackjon]

Um, did anyone ask you for your opinion?

Any body ever tell you that you're a fat ass

[wideright82]

Interesting - Scalia, plus the four liberals, voted for state's rights, while the four other conservatives voted for supressing state's rights...

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

Banks are a FEDERAL responsibility. The Fed was not set up in 1914 to give more power to states in the banking industry. We saw what happened prior to that with out government regulation. The Federal government shoudl control every thing, as they do, from mandatory reserves, lending rates, and so on. This is not a states right issue, and shouldn't be.

[dbackjon]

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

Banks are a FEDERAL responsibility. The Fed was not set up in 1914 to give more power to states in the banking industry. We saw what happened prior to that with out government regulation. The Federal government shoudl control every thing, as they do, from mandatory reserves, lending rates, and so on. This is not a states right issue, and shouldn't be.

but is the Fed constitutional??

[OL FU]

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

Banks are a FEDERAL responsibility. The Fed was not set up in 1914 to give more power to states in the banking industry. We saw what happened prior to that with out government regulation. The Federal government shoudl control every thing, as they do, from mandatory reserves, lending rates, and so on. This is not a states right issue, and shouldn't be.

States have no authority on how banks treat their customers in the state?

I think there is a big difference in regulating capital reserves and stopping predatory lending.

[Grizalltheway]

Interesting vote...if, in fact, this is one of the facets of government left to the states under the 10th Amendment...

Or, if it's is a federal responsibility per the Constitution, a poor decision by Judge Scalia...

WHere arre our banking/Constitution experts?????

Banks are a FEDERAL responsibility. The Fed was not set up in 1914 to give more power to states in the banking industry. We saw what happened prior to that with out government regulation. The Federal government shoudl control every thing, as they do, from mandatory reserves, lending rates, and so on. This is not a states right issue, and shouldn't be.

Nor is the Federal Reserve a "federal" institution...

[wideright82]

Banks are a FEDERAL responsibility. The Fed was not set up in 1914 to give more power to states in the banking industry. We saw what happened prior to that with out government regulation. The Federal government shoudl control every thing, as they do, from mandatory reserves, lending rates, and so on. This is not a states right issue, and shouldn't be.

Nor is the Federal Reserve a "federal" institution...

Good point, however, I look at it as an arm of the government. It may be separate, however, it is ultimately a federal entity. There are smaller feds across the country, 12 if i'm not mistaken, that help with the regional banks for their specific area. All are branches of the Fed. I like to think of the Fed as the 4th branch of government. They are also the most powerful people in this world.



I guess technically this shouldn't be a federal or state government matter, but we'll call it federal for arguments sake.

Banks are a FEDERAL responsibility. The Fed was not set up in 1914 to give more power to states in the banking industry. We saw what happened prior to that with out government regulation. The Federal government shoudl control every thing, as they do, from mandatory reserves, lending rates, and so on. This is not a states right issue, and shouldn't be.

States have no authority on how banks treat their customers in the state?

I think there is a big difference in regulating capital reserves and stopping predatory lending.

Here is the issue. The lending rates are basically (in that the rates vary based on the discount rate) set by the Fed, and there are different feds throughout the country that regulate on a regional basis. So the states should not have authority, there is already a regulatory body that governs them. Believe me, if required reserves weren't so lax, predatory lending would be a moot point.

[OL FU]

Nor is the Federal Reserve a "federal" institution...

Good point, however, I look at it as an arm of the government. It may be separate, however, it is ultimately a federal entity. There are smaller feds across the country, 12 if i'm not mistaken, that help with the regional banks for their specific area. All are branches of the Fed. I like to think of the Fed as the 4th branch of government. They are also the most powerful people in this world.

States have no authority on how banks treat their customers in the state?

I think there is a big difference in regulating capital reserves and stopping predatory lending.

Here is the issue. The lending rates are basically (in that the rates vary based on the discount rate) set by the Fed, and there are different feds throughout the country that regulate on a regional basis. So the states should not have authority, there is already a regulatory body that governs them. Believe me, if required reserves weren't so lax, predatory lending would be a moot point.

I don't think that matters with lending rates. I think most states provide usury laws. Additionally, some local municipalities stopped banks from charging ATM fees and only stopped because the banks shut their ATMs off. I don't think ( could be wrong) that simply because a business has a federal charges that it should not be subject to further restrictions from the states. There is nothing that requires a federally chartered banks to operate in a particular state. And I don't think there is a constitutional reason or a reasonable one from stopping states on providing additional lending restrictions. Now if a state decided that the capital or insurance requirements were not sufficient that would be a different matter.

[OL FU]

and PS bank lending rates are not set by the fed. They are set by the banks. There is nothing stopping a bank from lending to a prime customer at 18% other than competition.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I'm no banking expert, but my take-away from this ruling is "the fed sets the baseline, states can be more restrictive if they like, but never less" perhaps that's too cursory, and I may misunderstand it... but that was the gist i got from it... but i'm not a lawyer

[Cap'n Cat]

Um, did anyone ask you for your opinion?

Any body ever tell you that you're a fat ass

Yeah, you fuckers almost every day!!!

[wideright82]

and PS bank lending rates are not set by the fed. They are set by the banks. There is nothing stopping a bank from lending to a prime customer at 18% other than competition.

I know, I said via the discount rate, and also technically by the money supply. Take for instance when the Fed buys or sells treasuries, depending on the term of that, you see lending rates spike or decrease accordingly. This is a fed matter, I don't think the states NEED to be involved. It is the base at which the rates are taken from. The thing that stops banks from charging 18% is competition. The bank takes risks by lending to people with poor credit quality, just as we all do by investing in companies with poor credit quality. The issue that was brough about last year, was the fact there was NO regulation on who sold mortgages. Forget the mortgages themselves, there was no qualification necessary. It brought on people who were in it for the money and they did not understand the business. I'm sure 89 wasn't going around giving 7% mortgages to a couple with no credit, only to have the thing spike in 5 years because payments weren't made.


Their lending practices ahve a lot to do with what they keep in reserves. Everything else is going out on loan to make money. The Fed sets that. Friedman believed that there should be 100% reserve rate, not sure I agree, but we sure as shit would not have had the bank closures we had last year if we did.

[OL FU]

and PS bank lending rates are not set by the fed. They are set by the banks. There is nothing stopping a bank from lending to a prime customer at 18% other than competition.

I know, I said via the discount rate, and also technically by the money supply. Take for instance when the Fed buys or sells treasuries, depending on the term of that, you see lending rates spike or decrease accordingly. This is a fed matter, I don't think the states NEED to be involved. It is the base at which the rates are taken from. The thing that stops banks from charging 18% is competition. The bank takes risks by lending to people with poor credit quality, just as we all do by investing in companies with poor credit quality. The issue that was brough about last year, was the fact there was NO regulation on who sold mortgages. Forget the mortgages themselves, there was no qualification necessary. It brought on people who were in it for the money and they did not understand the business. I'm sure 89 wasn't going around giving 7% mortgages to a couple with no credit, only to have the thing spike in 5 years because payments weren't made.


Their lending practices ahve a lot to do with what they keep in reserves. Everything else is going out on loan to make money. The Fed sets that. Friedman believed that there should be 100% reserve rate, not sure I agree, but we sure as **** would not have had the bank closures we had last year if we did.

there is a difference in whether the states need to be involved and whether the constitution prohibits it.

[OL FU]

Any body ever tell you that you're a fat ass

Yeah, you **** almost every day!!!

One of the reasons you are so easy to like. You can take as well as you can give.

[wideright82]

I know, I said via the discount rate, and also technically by the money supply. Take for instance when the Fed buys or sells treasuries, depending on the term of that, you see lending rates spike or decrease accordingly. This is a fed matter, I don't think the states NEED to be involved. It is the base at which the rates are taken from. The thing that stops banks from charging 18% is competition. The bank takes risks by lending to people with poor credit quality, just as we all do by investing in companies with poor credit quality. The issue that was brough about last year, was the fact there was NO regulation on who sold mortgages. Forget the mortgages themselves, there was no qualification necessary. It brought on people who were in it for the money and they did not understand the business. I'm sure 89 wasn't going around giving 7% mortgages to a couple with no credit, only to have the thing spike in 5 years because payments weren't made.


Their lending practices ahve a lot to do with what they keep in reserves. Everything else is going out on loan to make money. The Fed sets that. Friedman believed that there should be 100% reserve rate, not sure I agree, but we sure as **** would not have had the bank closures we had last year if we did.

there is a difference in whether the states need to be involved and whether the constitution prohibits it.

True that I'll just sit here and read this article and drink this coffee until someone can look that up.

[wideright82]

Yeah, you **** almost every day!!!

One of the reasons you are so easy to like. You can take as well as you can give.

I've heard the Cap'n takes a little better than he gives, but..... oh you meant JOKES!!!.... yeah, he is good at that too.

[OL FU]

there is a difference in whether the states need to be involved and whether the constitution prohibits it.

True that I'll just sit here and read this article and drink this coffee until someone can look that up.

IF Scalia sides with the liberal judges then I'll take his word for it that they got one right

[CID1990]

Interesting - Scalia, plus the four liberals, voted for state's rights, while the four other conservatives voted for supressing state's rights...

This is more a case of the liberals on the court voting with Scalia, not Scalia voting with the liberals. Scalia was spot on, and he was staying true to his states' rights creds.

[houndawg]

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.

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

WTF? Who woke up Clarence?