Freddie Mac (FMCC)

[Sogo]

After sweeney sees this opinion, she would be contradicting it if she ruled in favor of her plaintiffs, wouldn't she? Fairholme case is a takings case. Well, now that Appellate court has ruled that's the 3rd amendment is perfectly legal (yeah, right), doesn't that mean that there "was no taking", legally speaking? It seems to me that the only way Sweeney could rule in favor of plaintiffs would be if a) she simply disagrees with the 2 Appellate judges, or b) HERA itself is seen by Sweeney to be legally problematic or unconstitutional.

In other words, if Sweeney rules in favor of plaintiffs, then doesn't that at least go mostly against what this Appellate court ruled today? I know the cases are challenging different aspects of the situation, but how can you declare a "taking" if the other court ruled that HERA allows the taking?