Judge deciding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dispute was appointed by Trump

[wt1531]

How can he not recuse himself since the argument directly involves a President that appointed him to the post?
He most likely will decide that Trump has the right to appoint the acting director, the clear intent and letter of the law creating the agency in the first place be damned.

[EffieBlack]

1. Being appointed by a president is not grounds for recusal

If this were a personal matter of a president, recusal might be appropriate. But virtually every federal case involving the government relates to the president.

[wt1531]

2. I agree but...

but this case seems to have the President personally involved--appointing an acting director, in defiance of a law/statue that he doesn't like and has personally railed against. I am not sure about the background or impartiality of this judge, but most Trump appointees seem to be heavily involved on the political side and most likely to back him no matter what the law says. I hope i am proven wrong.

[EffieBlack]

3. Judges have ruled on significant cases involving the presidents who appointed them:

For example, the Supreme Court that ruled on the Watergate tapes included several justices, including the Chief Justice, who were appointed by Nixon. The Courts that ruled on Clinton’s liability in the Paula Jones case included Clinton appointed. Two of the justices who ruled on Obamacare were appointed by Obama.

You’re right that these judges could be biased - but the fact that they were appointed by the president are not grounds for recusal.

[Volaris]

6. If that's the case, someone will file an immediate appeal,

And it should? go directly to the SC. If the LETTER of the Congressionally written law is clear and the intent is too, Roberts likley won't fuck around with that, and will vacate that Bad Decision pretty quick (I think). Alito will bitch about Congress usurping Executive Powers probably, but he won't be in the Majority.
And if becomes a bone of contention with The administration and Congressional Repubs, Roberts (again, I THINK) will not only not fuck around with it, but would write that opinion in such a way as to make sure this particular Administration knows not to fuck with him

JMHO.

[Matthew28]

4. We're about to get a test

of just how much damage Trump has done to the courts.

[TomSlick]

5. I prefer to think that a federal judge will fairly apply the law

until the opposite is proven by experience.

I haven't studied the issue but from what Sen. Warren said on Rachel, it doesn't sound close. Dodd-Frank specifies that the deputy director becomes the acting director. Trump is relying upon the Vacancies Act which (1) predates Dodd-Frank and is therefore superseded if the two acts are inconsistent and (2) the Vacancies Act allows for later laws (like Dodd-Frank) to specify a result other than that called for in the Vacancies Act. (There may be a good argument that the Vacancy Act is unconstitutional. See, Duke Law Journal. 50: 1511–1539.)

All of that to say, if the Judge rules for Trump, I'll have to do the research.