Congress can't do anything right...

[Harry Beanbag]

This was buried on like page 6 of the Oklahoman this morning.


Judge rules against ACORN funding cuts


NEW YORK (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=New+York&CATEGORY=STATE) — The U.S. (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=United+States&CATEGORY=COUNTRY) government’s move to cut off funding to ACORN (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Association+of+Community+Organizations+f or+Reform+Now&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION) was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.

U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Nina+Gershon&CATEGORY=PERSON) issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it’s in the public’s interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.


ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress’ decision to cut off its funding this fallwas unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.





Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.”












Bill Quigley (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Bill+Quigley&CATEGORY=PERSON), the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Center+for+Constitutional+Rights&CATEGORY=ORGANIZATION), which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can’t single out an individual or organization without due process.















"It’s a resounding victory for ACORN,” he said. "I’d be surprised if the government decides to appeal.”



ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country. Critics say it violated the tax-exempt status of some affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.


The law that halted ACORN’s federal funding took effect Oct. 1.























http://www.newsok.com/article/3424572?searched=acorn%20lawsuit&custom_click=search

[sooner n houston]

just wow!!!

[John Kochtoston]

http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/Gina-Gershon-(250x322).jpg

Man, she's a judge now? You'd think her gratuitous nudity in Showgirls, etc. would have come up in the confirmation process.

[King Barry's Back]

You say Congress can't do anything right, but I gotta say i think the judge is out of line.

Constitution pretty much give Congress power over the purse strings, and they certainly don't have to fund something they do not want to fund. Good grief, that judge has no power to enforce her decision, so why is she making it?

A key point -- she argues that funding ACORN is in the public interest. Fine, but the Constitution gives Congress the right to fund based on public interest. Definitely not the courts.

I don't know the details, but it may be that ACORN gets its federal funds through community block grants or something like that, where they apply and compete against other organizations -- rather than ACORN directly receiving appropriated funds.

But on the face of this decision, it looks like an easy overturn to me.

[bigxii]

Corrupt judge. No doubt a leftist trying to overthrow the will of the people.

Typical.

[King Barry's Back]

Wash Post ran the same AP story but included a few extra paras (below). You can see ACORN sued the exec branch, not Congress, so the decision could stick -- but Congress can still defund via a different mechanism if it wants.

The fact that only one AP story has cropped up leads me to believe this has been overlooked due to its lateness on a Friday afternoon. I predict it will explode on conservative radio beginning tomorrow, and FOX News -- if it hasn't already done so.

rest of the story --
The law that halted ACORN's federal funding took effect Oct. 1 and was extended Oct. 31. It was set to either expire or be extended again on Dec. 18.

ACORN's lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn and sought reinstatement of the funds. Quigley said millions of dollars in funds should begin to flow again to ACORN next week. The judge said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."

ACORN has been dogged by allegations of voter-registration fraud and embezzlement.

Several of its offices were the subject of an embarrassing hidden-camera sting in which ACORN employees were shown advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp to lie about her profession and launder her earnings. The videos sparked a political uproar, with Republicans trying to use the group's troubles to portray Democrats as corrupt.

The group's lawsuit named the U.S. government, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury as defendants.

Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin said the agency was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

"Today's ruling is a victory for the constitutional rights for all Americans and for the citizens who work through ACORN to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement.

[Harry Beanbag]

You say Congress can't do anything right, but I gotta say i think the judge is out of line.


Oh, I agree. I just think it's amusing that when Congress does finally bite the bullet and do the "right" thing, it still blows up in their face.

[reevie]

How about a ban on the bot here?

[Mongo]

How about a ban on the bot here?

Let's wait and see if he has any boner medications first

[Okla-homey]

legally, I'm down with the ruling.

Personally and morally, I'm not.

ACORN is a socialist organization. Period. The taxpayers lose.

Again.

[StoopTroup]

How much went to Acorn vs say one of the Banks?

[47straight]

Shows you how dangerous it is to turn on the faucets of funding nearly anything in the first place.

[StoopTroup]

Saw the old FEMA Director was on being interview by O'Rielly I believe. He's the guy from Oklahoma that Bush put in place before Katrina.

He did seem to learn a lot from that job. He might be good for the pubs when they get back in power next time.

[Okla-homey]

How much went to Acorn vs say one of the Banks?

Banks typically don't advise pimps how to qualify for federal loans to set-up brothels utilizing third-world minors as the hoes.

[StoopTroup]

Banks typically don't advise pimps how to qualify for federal loans to set-up brothels utilizing third-world minors as the hoes.

Agreed. I was just wondering just how much as to guage my outrage. I haven't seen anything good about acorn since the pimp deal. I thought they were supposed to clean up their act.

Are they still getting money?

If so...how much?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Banks typically don't advise pimps how to qualify for federal loans to set-up brothels utilizing third-world minors as the hoes.

True. Banks just give variable rate loans to those same pimps and their hos without any proof of income then go broke and ask for federal loans to stay open so they can continue to screw regular people over with ridiculous fees and assorted other dishonest business tactics.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

True. Banks just give variable rate loans to those same pimps and their hos without any proof of income then go broke and ask for federal loans to stay open...Banks didn't do that in the past, and never have wanted to. Requirement under penalty of sanctions by the Fed govt. caused this practice. The left wants you to believe the banks(read: capitalism)are to blame.

[Crucifax Autumn]

They didn't force them to make the rates variable though.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And if the banks want my sympathy, they need to be more honest about terms, fees, and so many other things they are misleading about. They also need to actually credit consumers when it is the bank's mistake instead of doing what they do now which is just tell the consumer they are overdrawn on the account NOT because the bank didn't credit the account with a deposit in a timely manner, but because the consumer didn't check to see if the bank ****ed up ahead of time...They want us to ASSUME they are incompetent while at the same time being punished for their incompetence.

And screw the feds too. They shoulda stayed out of it or did a better job, and that goes for both parties.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They didn't force them to make the rates variable though.The fed. govt.(democrats) required the banks to lend to people that normally wouldn't qualify. That established the downward spiral in the economy.

[Crucifax Autumn]

What I'm saying though is that yes, that was wrong and they shouldn't have done it. What the banks shouldn't have done is give the loans to people with ZERO income at all, not just low income, and they shouldn't have been allowed to be shady about how the variable rates worked. Lots of those people saw the initial payments and COULD have made them. When they doubled or more, that wasn't the case and the banks didn't care to explain that possibility to these idiots.

Like I said, screw the banks and screw the federal government. They both contributed and neither seems to want to straighten up to this day.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And as far as blaming it all on Democrats, Bush made a lot of political hay with his statistics about new home ownership and he signed plenty of legislation to keep it going. Legislation from Democrats. I say again, both sides are screwy now.

[Chuck Bao]

Banks didn't do that in the past, and never have wanted to. Requirement under penalty of sanctions by the Fed govt. caused this practice. The left wants you to believe the banks(read: capitalism)are to blame.

I may not be up on US banking regulations, but I was not aware of any private bank being forced to lend imprudently. I wasn't aware that the US government or the Federal Reserve could levy sanctions on private banks.

Many did lend imprudently and even enticed people to take out a mortgage on their "ever appreciating home value" to pay off their credit cards and then charge even more. I don't see how anyone can say that it wasn't out of greed and, oh yes, the capitalistic system.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And as far as blaming it all on Democrats, Bush made a lot of political hay with his statistics about new home ownership and he signed plenty of legislation to keep it going. Legislation from Democrats. I say again, both sides are screwy now.I know he got sucked into not fighting the situation, and certainly wish he would have stood fast against a bunch of things that were pushed through during his administration, but you have to look at the source for all the socialistic and illogical things that he went along with. (nobody who is conservative claims Bush signing on to the various democrat ideas was good, and that behavior got him into disfavor with conservatives) Were it not for the dems pushing all that crap, though, it wouldn't have happened. The only thing I can think of a republican pushed for in fairly recent history that was truly egregious was McCain and his campaign finance reform bullshi*. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, but he wasn't a wide-open marxist like almost everyone in the current democrat party.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The Republicans in congress have some of this to answer for as well. They could have stalled most anything they didn't agree with due to the number breakdown of votes at the time most of it went through. The only time they have a legit excuse is after 2006 and even then they had the means to stop most of it if they wanted to.

[Frozen Sooner]

I may not be up on US banking regulations, but I was not aware of any private bank being forced to lend imprudently. I wasn't aware that the US government or the Federal Reserve could levy sanctions on private banks.

Many did lend imprudently and even enticed people to take out a mortgage on their "ever appreciating home value" to pay off their credit cards and then charge even more. I don't see how anyone can say that it wasn't out of greed and, oh yes, the capitalistic system.

They weren't. It's talking point bull****. Neutral credit standards are now and always have been a defense to a CRA or HMDA claim.

The government can levy sanctions on private banks, certainly, through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

[Chuck Bao]

They weren't. It's talking point bull****. Neutral credit standards are now and always have been a defense to a CRA or HMDA claim.

The government can levy sanctions on private banks, certainly, through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

I have never heard of sanctions, but I concede the point that there could be. .

Your previous point would seriously negate the idea that there would be sanctions against any bank not offering imprudent loans.

I have no experience with a bank that refused loans because of race or because of a handicap if the loan application were sound. So, I have not experience with sanctions.

[47straight]

Fannie and Freddie are by far the worst actors in all this mess because theoretically we (the people who are the government) were supposed to have control over them.

I'm sure someone will try to spin it, but the cat's out of the bag. I've seen the C-SPAN tapes with my own eyes. Bush administration regulators getting SCREAMED at by Barney Frank and other Senate democrats for calling for tighter lending standards to prevent a Freddie/Fannie collapse.

But no. Democrat after democrat called the regulator racist, anti-poor, anti-progressive. But it wasn't progress - it was just politics.

Well, all except Barney Frank. It was also about the piece of *** he was getting - the high-ranking Freddie Mac official he was bonking.

But don't try to question him on it, especially if you are a college student. He'll yell at you even louder than he yelled at that regulator. That's because he's an expert on running government, since he's never even held a real private-sector job.


I can usually see other's peoples perspectives, but I have no idea how any democrat could stomach sharing a party with that idiot.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I farted.

[StoopTroup]

Banker: Hi....did you guys know that the Federal Government is now allowing us to offer you guys a way to live beyond your means?

Home Buyer: Really?

Banker: yes. Everybody is doing it. You don't really own anything when you die anyways. We're all just renting really.

Home Buyer: I can see your point but my Parent's had a conventional loan and lived comfortably for years in a very nice quaint Home. They were pretty happy.

Banker: I'm sure they were. Did they leave you that property?

Home Buyer: Well....no...they got ill and we sold it off and put them in a nice Senior Community.

Banker: Listen. You can do what they did or you can do what everyone is doing now and take one of these loans on a larger house and in five years...you can sell it and go buy the Home of your Dreams. That's how it works now.

Home Buyer: Sounds a little risky.

Banker: I agree...it does....however...I've seen very few folks have a problem. The risks are low in this economy.

Home Buyer: How much can you loan us?

Banker: $X,XXX,XXX.00

Home Buyer: Wow! That's a lot.

Banker: Yeah but you guys can easily make those interest payments with what you guys make. You are both healthy and have good jobs....what's to worry?

Home Buyer: You are right. Honey...what do you think?

Honey: I'm OK with it. (I only have to stay with you for five years and I'll retire while you are driving a broken down Chrysler and while I'm banging the poolboy) Where do we sign?