Many years ago, state attorneys general were suing banks over their lending practices. The now disgraced Eliot Spitzer, then attorney general for New York, in 2001, stated: "For far too long, the subprime market has been a feeding ground for unscrupulous lenders looking to gouge the most vulnerable consumers."
The Banking Industry did not take state oversight lightly and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court which, of course, sided with the banks. In a dissent by Justice Stevens (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia), he explained:
The Banking Industry did not take state oversight lightly and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court which, of course, sided with the banks. In a dissent by Justice Stevens (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia), he explained:
Congress has enacted no legislation immunizing national bank subsidiaries from compliance with nondiscriminatory state laws regulating the business activities of mortgage brokers and lenders. Nor has it authorized an executive agency to preempt such state laws whenever it concludes that they interfere with national bank activities. Notwithstanding the absence of relevant statutory authority, today the Court endorses an agency's incorrect determination that the laws of a sovereign State must yield to federal power. The significant impact of the Court's decision on the federal-state balance and the dual banking system makes it appropriate to set forth in full the reasons for my dissent. [which he proceeds to do in excruciating detail which makes so darn much sense right now ... truly a must read opinion] Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. 127 S.Ct. 1559, 1573 (2007).
Hmm... isn't Wachovia now owned by Wells Fargo? They really won that case.
No comments:
Post a Comment