A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday blocked a new Biden administration rule that would prohibit credit card companies from charging customers late fees higher than $8.

US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, granted a preliminary injunction to several business and banking organizations that allege the new rule violates several federal statutes.

These organizations, led by the right-leaning US Chamber of Commerce, sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after the rule was finalized in March. The rule, which was set to go into effect Tuesday, would save consumers about $10 billion per year by cutting fees from an average of $32, the CFPB estimated.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    253
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I want stories like this bombarded at the morons on here saying Biden does nothing

      Biden putting up rules and then failing to enforce them because of a predictable Texas appeallate court issuing a predictable injunction amounts to nothing.

      Biden had the opportunity to pack the courts back in 2021 and… didn’t. He still has the opportunity, right now, while he has a Senate majority.

      This isn’t just a Biden problem. I could name a dozen of Senate Dems who paved the way for a stacked court, going back to the McCain-friendly Democrats caving to Frist’s Nuclear Option back in 2005 (senior senator from Delaware whatsisface notwithstanding).

      But this is a kind of learned liberal helplessness, when a guy like Biden can throw you an empty headline and get “See! He tried to do something! We just need to give him 2009 supermajorities before they’ll work!” Meanwhile, if any Republican wins any branch of any level of government, that’s all they need to eviscerate democracy forever.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m more willing to give Biden credit when he’s blocked by trump appointed judges than I am when he’s blocked in the senate by members of the party he nominally heads.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The Legislative Branch does not report to the Executive Branch, it checks it. If the Senate reported to the President, they wouldn’t be doing their job. Trump’s presidency was a good example of corruption of governmental checks and balances.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The Legislative Branch does not report to the Executive Branch, it checks it.

          Do they ever. And you may support legislators based solely on how reliably they kill progressive policy for you, but I don’t.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Progressivism is not a contest. Party division weakens us. Just look at how it’s affected the Republican Party.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                I’m not happy with centrism. The term is progressive for a reason. If you abandon all progress short of the goal, you’re not progressing. That just leads to party division, disenfranchisement, and Republican regression. Liberal policies of today were the progressive legislation of the past.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  19
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m not happy with centrism. The term is progressive for a reason. If you abandon all progress short of the goal, you’re not progressing. That just leads to party division, disenfranchisement, and Republican regression.

                  Stop trying to redefine “progressive” to mean “slow walking progress.”

                  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    The government is slow, not the ideals. What you fail to understand is that liberal policies that you take for granted today were the progressive policies of the past. You’ll never reach the goal if you discredit and discard everything that comes up short.

                    Your willful ignorance to recognize that half the nation is in opposition of liberal and progressive ideals is what leads you to point the finger at those who understand that compromise is necessary when Democrats don’t have full control of the government.

                    If Democrats could successfully maintain presidential and congressional majority for an extended period, politicians would be forced to become more progressive to capture more of the vote. That requires unity, not division.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      63
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      We don’t yet know if he actually did anything here or not, we will find out when the legal challenges are done. On one hand, it may survive, in which case something was actually accomplished, on the other hand, Biden may have wasted a whole bunch of people’s time and clogged up the courts even more than they already are.

      • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        WTF kind of logic is this? Are you saying he shouldn’t even try and just sit with his thumbs up his ass rather than try to accomplish good things because a court may block it? Should we all just throw our hands up and give up doing anything at all?

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a terrible argument. And love how you blame the obstructionism on the one being obstructed from accomplishing their goals.

        So, no, we have already seen the action. He did something. Will the sociopathic fascist a-holes in government overturn the action ALREADY TAKEN is what remains to be seen.

        • Reyali@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          First off, I totally agree the argument you responded to is bad and that Biden is driving toward the right goal.

          However, if we disambiguate the specific circumstance here, there is sometimes an argument to be made that the one being obstructed is the problem. Think about how many obviously illegal laws Republicans have pushed through. A recent example would be DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE” act trying to eliminate DEI training in companies. It so clearly goes against federal law about protected classes and was deemed unconstitutional because of the first amendment. I don’t think there’s any chance DeSantis actually believed this act was legal or would be allowed, he just wanted the brownie points of “hurr durr, own the libs.”

          There are so many cases of that kind of thing, and I think it’s absolutely fair to be critical of those whose laws are being obstructed when they initiate them in bad faith.

          However, like I said, that doesn’t apply in this situation; this law was not made in bad faith, and the Texas court is definitely the problem here. I only bring it up because “blaming the obstructionism on the one being obstructed” can sometimes be a legit argument.