Presidential Electability, Constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Patterson v. Walgreens episode artwork

EPISODE · Feb 29, 2020 · 58 MIN

Presidential Electability, Constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Patterson v. Walgreens

from The Politics Guys · host The Politics Guys - Government Democracy & News

This week Trey is joined by Ken. The two start the show by discussing what it means for a presidential candidate to be electable. Given the focus on Sanders post Nevada the pair focus specifically on how him in a general election against President Trump. Trey and Ken explore what historically drives candidates to be viable outside of the horse race narrative. Trey's interest in the Democratic primary makes him particularly concerned for a candidate that can beat Trump. He believes that voters will more generally punish Sanders for his socialist policies, but that the recent market correction will aid him. Ken agrees that Sanders has a liability in his socialist title, he thinks it is a smaller problem and can be fixed with proper messaging. Next the pair turn to the issue of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This agency, created via Dodd Frank, is at the center of an unusual controversy over the relationship between the President and Congress. The Supreme Court took the case this week. The key controversy surrounds presidential appointment: can president's be restricted by Congress in their removal power? Trey recounts the history of the removal power and the facts of the case, Ken explores the likely Supreme Court outcome. Finally Trey and Ken turn to the recent case of Patterson v. Walgreen. This case, which the Supreme Court declined to hear this week, more narrowly defines religious exemptions for employees. Specifically, as outlined by Trey, Patterson was fired for not coming to work on a Saturday due to his Seventh Day Adventist practices. The lower courts ruled that Walmart did have the power to fire him. Ken believes the lower courts were wrong, but he surprises Trey by suggesting that he disagrees with religious exemptions for generally applicable laws. Today’s Sponsors The Democracy Group. For more info visit: democracygroup.org Empower. For more info about Empower, visit:empower.me/politicsguys Be part of the discussion on the Politics Guys ‘BipartisanPolitics’ community on Reddit. Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesThe Politics Guys on Facebook | XListener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. You can support us or change your level of support at patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support. On Venmo, we’re @PoliticsGuys.The Politics Guys is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Feb 29, 2020

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

Presidential Electability, Constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Patterson v. Walgreens

0:00 58:29

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of The Politics Guys?

This episode is 58 minutes long.

When was this The Politics Guys episode published?

This episode was published on February 29, 2020.

Can I download this The Politics Guys episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!