Disappointments Aside, Sessions Has Been on a Winning Streak for Trump Supporters

The Hill covers the upcoming DOJ decision on the structure and constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

For someone who, like me, was an early supporter of Donald Trump, and remains an ardent one, it could be argued that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly disappointed the president. Reports that the president humiliated him in an Oval Office meeting in February were not surprising considering the presidential tweets and public comments made expressing anger and frustration over the attorney general’s decision to recuse himself in the Russia investigation (and thus allowing the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.)

But it seems that Sessions weathered the storm and made some positive adjustments. There is likely more to this story, and those predicting a Sessions departure will surely be proven wrong. There are many successes Sessions has brought to the table already and surely more coming too. 

Next on the agenda is an Oct. 2 deadline for the DOJ to issue its opinion on the structure and constitutionality of the CFPB. This opinion is in response to a lawsuit filed by mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen), which is seeking to have the courts rule that the CFPB is indeed unconstitutional.

The issues proving unconstitutionality of the CFPB that Ocwen has raised are similar to those brought by another mortgage servicer, PHH Corp.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s John Berlau (who filed a much earlier CFPB challenge) described the CFPB’s overzealous and unconstitutional actions in writing, “the CFPB has gone after financial services companies PHH and Ocwen retroactively for actions the firms took years earlier, when both were under the jurisdiction of other agencies. In the PHH case in which the court found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional, the court also ruled that the CFPB’s retroactive application of its new interpretation of the law, coupled with the massive fine, violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process and flunked ‘Rule of Law, 101.'”

Read the full article at The Hill.