U.S. Supreme Court rules that the city of Miami can sue Wells Fargo and Bank of America under the Fair Housing Act -- but also says the city would have to prove that the increased costs of bankster lending practices directly affected city revenue. I figure Miami proves pretty easily that predatory lending to minorities led to foreclosures which led to reduced tax receipts, but they might have a tougher time drawing predatory lending to falling property values. Also, Chief Justice Roberts's opinion essentially gives Miami personhood status; not being a fan of corporate "personhood," I'd prefer a different avenue to getting the good folks of Miami the relief they deserve.
Roosevelt Institute reports on how political contributions caused specific vote changes in financial reform and net neutrality. Key finding: "for every $100,000 (a) Democratic representatives received from finance, the odds they would break with their party's majority support for the Dodd-Frank legislation increased by 13.9 percent." Considering the damage financial deregulation has always done, these votes were bought very cheaply -- as they always are, if you recall the USPIRG/CTJ report from 2012 finding that 280 Fortune 500 corporations spent $2 billion on lobbying between 2008 and 2010 and got over $220 billion in tax breaks during that time.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt asks callers to come forward about the "damage" stringent EPA regulations allegedly do, but callers instead mostly complain that EPA regulations don't protect clean air and clean water enough. Well, ask a stupid question! Paragraph 6, in which a Pittsburgh resident talks about the days you had to change your shirt at lunch because of mill smoke, should really finish any argument about whether regulations "serve a purpose." But you know the haters never stop hating, and the worshipers of mammon always need another fix.
Jesus Mary and Joseph nobody cares about what the "moderates" in both parties want to accomplish. Sometimes I think the only thing worse than an extremist lying without shame or consequence is a "moderate" droning on about "innovation" and "public-private partnerships" and "right-siz(ing) regulation," because such nattering still enables extremists. And why should we work on "the President's priorities," instead of the people's priorities? I'd been feeling a bit glum that a 2018 Democrat wave (if such a thing materializes!) would take out a Charlie Dent long before it took out a Devin Nunes, but not so much now.
Finally, woman who laughed audibly during a confirmation hearing at the suggestion that then-Attorney General Sessions had always fought for racial equality now faces up to a year in prison for "disorderly and disruptive conduct." How many times must I tell these pimps! Laughing at our elected officials is our birthright! And dig all the hair-splitting done at the trial over exactly how loud her laugh was! Gosh, what are they going to do when we're all laughing at them?