Why are you listening to his podcast when there are puddles to be jumped in?

Come on, let's get outside and take on autumn.

All the need is a pair of wales in a pot of patty for low.

It's made with calcium and put them in D for immune support.

My mum says healthy mischief needs healthy bones and seeing those best most of the time.

Take on autumn with patty for low.

From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

The Supreme Court kicks off its new term with a big case on the constitutionality

of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as an argument about so-called

Tester lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal. We are joined today by my colleagues,

columnists Alicia Finley and Kim Strassel. Welcome to you both.

The case being heard in oral argument on Tuesday was Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

the Community Financial Services Association of America. That is a mouthful.

But the basic argument is whether the funding scheme set up by the CFPB

violates the appropriations clause of the US Constitution, Article 1, which says,

no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

And Alicia, I wonder if you can help flesh this out a little bit.

Give us a sense of what the stakes are, the background of this case,

and what the arguments made by each side seem to be.

So we're called back in 2010, Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which set up the CFPB,

and really the godmother of this law or the CFPB was Elizabeth Warren.

...