Gotta love how it's always one asshole judge in Texas that can stop legislation for the whole country.
this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
806 points (98.9% liked)
News
23615 readers
3470 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Infuriating thing was, this judge was clearly shopped for, but he kicked the case to the DC district Court instead of Texas. He himself even accused the banks of venue shopping in the ruling when he did so! Unfortunately the DC district court sent it right back and said he still had to take the case. He should have recused himself at that pont anyways given his stock holdings and things, but he now decides to reward the the banks for their venue shopping he's clearly aware of. Judiciary is rotten.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-judge-moves-fee-case-232103686.html
He just put an injunction in place which is common. It just means the case has to be decided first.
If he’s accusing them of venue shopping. I suspect he’s going to rule against them.
The legal standard for an injunction also includes a "likelihood of success on the merits." The judge agrees with the banks in his ruling that they are likely to succeed on the case. So unfortunately the injunction is a signal there is a good chance he rules in the banks favor ultimately. Though he spends a bunch of the ruling just talking about how he's mad this case was kicked back to him. He only spends like a page talking about if the legal standard for injunction has been met or not.
Not just likelihood of success, but also whether any irreparable harm could occur while the case is being decided, in the event the case favors the plaintiffs. In this case, if card companies are only allowed to collect $8 while the case is ongoing, and then a judge ruling they are allowed to collect more than that, means there's a monetary loss that will have happened. Now I wouldn't be crying if credit card companies are forced to stop ripping people off, and absolutely fuck the Chamber of Commerce, but that's what it is.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
""Gotta love how it's always one asshole ~~judge~~ trump appointee in Texas that can stop legislation for the whole country.""
load more comments
(1 replies)
I want stories like this bombarded at the morons on here saying Biden does nothing and both sides are the same.
This Trump fucker is actively fighting for mega corps.
It doesn't matter to them. They think all they have to say is "Genocide Joe" and they've made their argument.
Yeah, because Donny will surely stand up for Gaza much more than Joe ever did...
They don't like it when you point out that Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, tacitly declaring it to belong wholly to Israel. He's made it very clear what he thinks about Palestine.
Or that Trump repealed the 50-year-old sanctions preventing Israel from developing on Palestinian territory, which Biden quickly reinstated.
It made Netanyahu so happy, he named a town after Trump in the occupied Golan Heights.
And you know 100% that if Biden was against Israel and supported Gaza, they'd bitch and complain and say Biden supports terrorists. Bad faith arguments across the board coming from those worthless shitstains.
Nah, the Trump base doesn't give two shits about Israel/Palestine. And they'll never know Biden ever tried. I'm pretty sure they're still talking about the laptop
Those people aren't Trump voters, they are tankies at best and accelerationists at worst (with a generous helping of foreign sockpuppets too)
They want Donald in office because it is better for China. They don't give a shit about Uyghur genocide or the fact that "socialist" China is producing billionaires.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(32 replies)
load more comments
(33 replies)
See, Biden is doing things. Don’t eat the Russian misinformation troll’s onion.
Also a good example of how executive orders are not the end-all-be-all solution for problems that could in theory be solved by the executive alone. We shouldn't be blaming Biden for not doing things that ultimately are the responsibility of legislative inaction.
It's still bullshit that this was blocked, and definitely raises suspicion that the judge in question is bought and paid for by the banking industry, or at the very least, a Trump appointee who doesn't think twice about looking the other way if it helps Don the Con.
The Generally Obstructive Party will block this and then specifically bring up he didn't do shit about it. Their base won't even check that he tried and will say he tried because he knew it would fail, and they don't want lower credit card fees anyway.
load more comments
(11 replies)
US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump
This is where we share reaping what we sowed with the long term secondary and tertiary damage from electing Donald Trump (and by extension, giving the Federalist Society carte blanche to re-form the judiciary in their hateful, spiteful image). They will continue to happen for decades to come (and will often be blamed on the liberals/progressive currently in power because they'll be the only ones trying to do anything to fix it).
The future's looking bright, guys
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ah yes. Late fees. Something that clearly contributes to our society.
Yeah, better than nothing, but wouldn't have been enough.
Another example why it never pays off to go after moderate solutions. Republicans will fight everything equally as hard, so why not actually try for a lot?
At least then when things actually make it, they cause a difference
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I imagine this judge made a fat stack of cash if this. Even if you delay it a year, think of how much money the banks can make extra.
... 10 billion. It says so in the summary.
The judge was probably persuaded by 10k only
It is surprisingly inexpensive to buy a US congressperson or a senator. So yeah, I'd bet less for a judge.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Good ol’ Christian Right wanting a Christian Nation while defending banks and ignoring their Jesus who destroyed the money lenders’ tables.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"Whoa hold on, think about the poor oligopoly" -some republican judge, probably
The next president needs to pack the Federal court benches. I am getting so tired of right wingnuts upending democracy with these BS rulings.
This kind of stuff is absolutely the number one failure of Democrats. They want to play fair and by the rules, so when there's opposition to their appointments they just lie down and accept it until the Republicans get exactly who they want. Meanwhile the Republicans will lie, cheat, and slander their way to anything they want, including getting ultra-conservatives in on positions that aren't supposed to be political.
Biden's been way better in this regard which is part of what makes him way better than previous Democrat presidents. But I still don't have high hopes for "the party of compromise" in getting progressives in these kinds of positions. In particular, we all remember what happened at the end of Obama's presidency with supreme court judges and Roe v Wade.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Of course it's Texas.
I remember how frequent "legislating from the bench" came up on the news - Is the GOP up in arms about this one?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
But both sides! They're the same! Blah blah blah. Politicians are politicians, but the Republicans do absolutely nothing to actually better the lives of their voters. Republicans answer only to the pursuit of absolute power and their wealthy donors. End rant....
load more comments
(6 replies)
Any websites that keep score on judges? We may not get to vote on federal judges, but some of us get to on others.
load more comments
(1 replies)
OK... so this is weird. The Supreme court just upheld that the funding structure of the CFPB was constitutional overruling the 5th circuit ruling that the CFPB funding structure was unconstitutional... But THIS federal judge just used the 5th court unconstitutionality ruling as the basis for why this CFPB credit card rule was unconstitutional (the CFPB is unconstitutional so any decision they make is invalid). It seems like he's leaning on a just overturned ruling to make this decision. Is this just a case of a timing error where everything in the credit card fee case was filed before he Supreme Court overruled the 5th circuit's ruling or is there another argument there?
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›