The 5th Circuit just ruled the SEC has no oversight power

It will be appealed of course - right up to that sane, rational Supreme Court.

Get ready for the largest transfer of wealth to the oligarchs since Russia decided to dentionalize and hand out goodies to Putin's friends.

This of course following the CDC has no ability to oversee public safety, and timed right as a major SEC investigation into Wall Street collusion was starting.

They want us to be Feringinar.

How long before Boeings start falling out of sky?

Yeah. I mean that sounds bad and all but Hillary just didn’t seem that nice.

Also, vagina.

I get that ya'll think it's a bad decision and all, but can someone help me out and explain in layman's terms the legal flaws in the decision?

It might help clear A LOT of things up if you quit following Republican propaganda.

I'll take that as a "no", as usual.

Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?

No, it means "that you have to ask means you're already too fucking stupid to understand the answer".
Like Dayton.

Cute non-sequitur.

What's the legal error in the ruling?

I find it hard to believe that YOU of all people have any understanding of the issues at hand.

Your one and only schtick is to howl and fling poop at people. I can't remember the last time that a comment from you ever added value to a discussion outside of MC, so back on ignore you go.

In Palestinian carpenter zombies who are also white?
Oh, wait, you have no trouble with that.
Spare me your performative incredulity.
It bores me.

Was I too subtle? Or did you not catch the reference?

Point 2 goes against pretty much all precedent, certainly since the end of the Lochner era.

Well, let's see:

Securities Act of 1933
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Trust Indenture Act of 1939
Investment Company Act of 1940
Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Uniform Securities Act of 1956
Williams Act of 1968
Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
Sarbanes–Oxley Act
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003
Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006
Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
15 U.S.C.§ 78d
Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations

All of which are explicit law passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President of the United States.

You might have heard of a little something called the Great Depression and Black Friday, that was the reason for the need to clean up the massive fraud and deception in the securities markets.

So yeah, pretty strong legal precedent that congress did indeed desire the SEC to do the job congress specifically entitled SEC to do, and then modified as part of their oversite duties many, many times.

But why is it no surprise that basic comprehension of how our government works is beyond the capability of those on the right?

If they successfully tear this down it will devastate the US economy - blue sky acts will be needed again, so every single stock that's offered will have to go through many dozens of regulatory agencies.

The opportunity for fraud though will be unprecendented. Which, of course, is the point.

I'm well aware of the quote, and its non-applicability here.

On topic, there are at least two possibilities that I can see.

1) You know the legal errors made by the 5th Circuit and you just don't feel like explaining them. Ok, fair enough, but I don't think this is it.
2) The 5th Circuit didn't really make any legal errors or you just don't care whether they did or not. You want the courts to ignore the law and make up new stuff. This is is the case that I suspect is true.

What does the quote reference, what do you think I am saying with it and why do you think it doesn’t apply?

Mr. Falcepalm Jr. doesn’t have anything to say other than his clown routine and handing out facepalms, GFY’s, fantasy land’s and dumb’s.

Put me on ignore then.
Unless you're scared of what I'd do behind your back.
But that would be an admission I'm smart, and good at what I do.

Well done, sir.

You forgot the Bank Secrecy Act and the PATRIOT ACT.

In a nutshell, the courts have had almost 100 years to rule on the constitutionality of securities regulation and enforcement, but the whackjob fifth circuit suddenly finds problems with all these laws.

Don’t flatter yourself.

Then put me on ignore.
Come on, I'm of no consequence, so prove it.

Oh, then Lubak didn't wish it.
Maybe that's why he's crying right now.
Take him off ignore, and see for yourself.

This is quite possibly the most wrong a circuit court has been since they were litigating slavery.

The specific reasoning seems moot. Ignoring long-standing precedent is its own monumental legal error.

@Chaos Descending

===

Republican judges are going to end the US as we know it. To paraphrase the Economist, the solution to activist courts from the prior century is not an activist SCOTUS right now. Two wrongs don't make a right. Congress needs to figure out to way to function again and stop leaving fundamental questions to the courts.

You missed a couple:
3) He doesn't know the specific legal errors made by the 5th circuit but can tell from heuristics that they're definitely present.
4) There are so many legal and factual errors both obvious and non-obvious that's not worth recounting all of them when the en banc hearing will strike it down.

(It's actually 4, but 3 might apply too.)

I'd suggest listening to the Opening Arguments podcast, OA597 for a breakdown of how it all falls apart, but to VERY briefly summarize:

Point 1 in the ruling relies on Grand Financier (1989) which is completely inapplicable, because that was specifically about a non-governmental lawsuit. Even such noted liberal judges as Clarence Thomas in as late as Oil States Energy Services (2018) specifically said that Grand Financier was inapplicable when the government is party to an enforcement action. The judge straight up lies about that, and claims the opposite.

Point 2 in the ruling says that Congress said nothing at all about how the SEC should determine public interest for determining if it can go through an Aministrative Law Judge, and so makes the law subject to the non-delegation doctrine analysis (defaulting to the non-delegation doctrine itself is extremely suspect. It's been 87 years since the last non-delegation case a plaintiff actually won such a case, in the Lochner era, which even Alito makes fun of). But the plain reading of the relevant statute 15 USC §78u-2 subsection c says exactly that. And unjust enrichment (legalese for insider trading) is specifically called out in that subsection. The judge is simply ignoring the text and plain meaning of the law to reach this result. There is no other possible explanation.

Point 3 effectively tries to do away with all ALJs because they can't be fired except for cause, citing Free Enterprise Fund (2010), but that ruling explicitly says "this decision does not apply to ALJs" because they have an adjudication and recommendation role, not an enforcement role, and they don't promulgate policy, they adjudicate it, making them more like civil servants than commission officials.

There are a bunch of other minor factual and legal errors, but those are the biggies.

From a consequences standpoint this is particularly bad because until it's overruled, 5th circuit internal rules say that it's binding precedent because the judge had more than one grounds to overturn, even though all 3 of them are obvious bullshit. So right now is a very good time to commit securities fraud and insider trading in the 5th circuit.

But it will likely be overruled, if not en banc, then in a SCOTUS decision that'll be somewhere between 5-4 (L+Thomas+Alito) to 7-2 (all but Gorsuch and Roberts).