Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

I give a lot but not complete power to a judicial bar clause

Example can be a constitutional right

We have a right - guaranteed by the constitution - to free speech

That right goes a long way (some times like the Nazi march in Skokie too far IMO_)

We would all agree ?

So that by definition is constitutional right - the guarantee of free speech - very broadly and consistently applied

But one can not (falsely) yell fire in a crowded theater

In that decision - about 100 years ago - per a quick search the thinking was

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others


From the above - the ability to find situations where the guarantee of free speech is not guaranteed due to HARM - I derive the ability of the appellate court to not read the judicial bar as 100% absolute ........... but again - on its face the plain English approach stops the court pretty much all the time --- and it will take some insight into motive and intent etc. (of the FHFA and congress) IMO to put aside that obstacle

And, I think it is being argued by plaintiffs that the bar does not FHFA as an agency but only to FHFA in its role as conservator/receiver. Thus - maybe actions by the agency FHFA can be addressed by a court (or so I think goes one line of attack on the judicial bar)