Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Do Conservators Nationalize Companies? "Whatever conservators do,” Breyer indicated, “they don’t nationalize companies.”
One thing SCOTUS could do, and Justice Thomas said this in Seila, they could declare HERA UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY, remedy Plaintiffs, and let the US Congress pass a new HERA if they want (i.e., the Bulldozer Approach to remedying an Unconstitutionally Structured Statute).
In Seila, the Majority, rejected that approach and instead used a Scalpel Approach by inserting "at will" and blue pencilling "malfeasance, neglect, etc." They were aided by a Severability Clause in the Dodds Frank Act, and TOTALLY GUESSED THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE WANTED INSTEAD OF JETTISIONING DODD FRANK!
There is a similar issue in the Obamacare case they heard a couple of weeks ago...
Since Congress dropped the egg to begin with, by Unconstitutionally insulating a Single Director Federal Agency Head from POTUS, LET CONGRESS REWRITE/AMEND THE LAW, JUDGES JUDGE LAWS, CONGRESS WRITES THEM!
CHECKMATE! = 9 Angry US Supreme Court Justices + 1 UST Secretary Willing and Able to Act Sooner than Later + 1 FHFA Director (who wants to follow HERA) + 1\2 US Congress "ready for Administrative Action"
The final words: "MR. THOMPSON: Yes, Your Honor.
For decades, federal conservators and
receivers have exercised powers under statutory
schemes that are indistinguishable from the one
at issue here. Yet no conservator receiver has
ever been before -- before permitted to operate
its ward for the exclusive benefit of the
federal government.
And so I will close with the words of
Mark Calabria, FHFA's current director, "Fair
and predictably applied insolvency rules allow
investors and creditors to judge the risks of
investing in a company. If that process can be
manipulated to favor one creditor, as FHFA has
favored Treasury, then there is no basis to
judge what could happen if a company fails.
Given the important role the government bodies
play in the resolution of many financial
institutions, it is essential that the performance of this role assure all stakeholders
of fairness and predictability."
Justice Kagan (I think she wrote a book at Harvard Law on the Administrative State aka the 4th Branch of government):
"JUSTICE KAGAN: Does that mean,
Mr. Thompson, that we have to do a great deal
more than invalidate the -- the -- the Third
Amendment and everything that follows from it?
I mean why shouldn't we go back to the -- the --
the -- the -- the first or the second?"
"MR. THOMPSON: Well, Your Honor, we
focused on the Third Amendment because that's
the -- the feature of this that rearranged the
capital structure, but as we made clear to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, we are perfectly
content with all of these arrangements, which,
as we say in the complaint, were a concrete
life-preserver. It's like getting a credit card
with a double-digit interest rate that you can't
repay the debt on. It's not debt, but you can't
pay the money back, and so --
JUSTICE KAGAN: Thank you,
Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: -- we would be
perfectly content with it being thrown out."
The word, "NATIONALIZATION" or "NATIONALIZE" was used 20 TIMES! Gee, I wonder why?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2020
So would that mean IF the SCOTUS ruled to amend the PSPA or rule MC REMOVABLE AT WILL BY POTUS before SM leaves, SM could cancel the whole PSPA in its entirety?
"6.7. Effect of Order; Injunction; Decree. If any order, injunction or decree is issued by any court of
competent jurisdiction that vacates, modifies, amends, conditions, enjoins, stays or otherwise affects the
appointment of Conservator as conservator of Seller or otherwise curtails Conservator’s powers as such
conservator (except in each case any order converting the conservatorship to a receivership under
Section 1367(a) of the FHE Act), Purchaser may by written notice to Conservator and Seller declare this
Agreement null and void, whereupon all transfers hereunder (including the issuance of the Senior Preferred
Stock and the Warrant and any funding of the Commitment) shall be rescinded and unwound and all
obligations of the parties (other than to effectuate such rescission and unwind) shall immediately and
automatically terminate."
U.S. Supreme Court weighs shareholder suit over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
BY Reuters
— 1:14 PM ET 12/09/2020
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, Dec 9 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday questioned a bid by shareholders of Fannie Mae ( FNMA
Loading...
Loading...
) and Freddie Mac ( FMCC
Loading...
Loading...
) to pursue legal claims arising from the government's rescue of the mortgage finance firms following the 2008 housing crisis.
The justices heard an appeal by President Donald Trump's administration of a lower court ruling that let shareholders in the two companies pursue a challenge to a 2012 agreement between the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Treasury Department.
That agreement eliminated dividend payouts to various shareholders and required Fannie and Freddie to pay the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to their quarterly net worth each quarter, which now totals billions of dollars.
The justices also heard arguments in a related appeal brought by the shareholders that challenged the constitutional structure of the agency, which is led by a single director who can be removed by the president only "for cause."
The administration in its appeal of a 2019 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argued that the lawsuit should not be permitted but agreed with the challengers that FHFA's structure is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the power of president.
In 2016, Fannie and Freddie shareholders Patrick Collins, Marcus Liotta and William Hitchcock sued in a federal court in Texas arguing that the 2012 agreement, sometimes referred to as the "net worth sweep," exceeded FHFA's authority and that it should be thrown out.
The U.S. government in 2008 seized Fannie and Freddie, private enterprises set up by Congress, at the height of the financial crisis as they teetered on the brink of insolvency. The government took a majority stake in each and they were placed under the supervision of the FHFA, which was created at the same time.
Some justices appeared skeptical during the arguments about whether the 2012 agreement could be voided even if they find that the agency's structure is unconstitutional.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the remedy sought by the shareholders is "a big one and hard for us to swallow."
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would be "counterintuitive, perhaps illogical" to suggest that the challengers could get anything more than a declaration that the director of the agency can be removed by the president at any time.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the premise of the shareholders' lawsuit, noting that it was based on the notion that they were "left out in the cold and their holdings rendered worthless."
Roberts told the shareholders' lawyer David Thompson that he checked the share prices on Wednesday morning and that Fannie was trading at $2.69 and Freddie at $2.56.
"Your shares are not worthless, they are worth something. ... So doesn't that render your sort of nationalization rhetoric just that?" Roberts asked.
The Supreme Court in a similar case involving another federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruled in June that its single-director structure was unconstitutional, deciding that the president should be able to fire the director at any time.
Some justices questioned whether the court even needed to answer the constitutional question to decide the case, noting that the 2012 agreement was signed off on by an acting director of the FHFA, who could have been removed by then-President Barack Obama.
The FHFA is headed by a director who is appointed to a five-year term by the president subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. If the Supreme Court rules that the current structure is invalid, it would enable Democratic President-elect Joe Biden to replace the current Trump-appointed director, Mark Calabria, after taking office in January.
Fannie has now paid $181.4 billion to the government and Freddie has paid $119.7 billion. The pair drew a combined $191.4 billion from the government at the time of the rescue. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Pete Schroeder; Editing by Will Dunham)
But it is true that they COULD INVALIDATE HERA IN ITS ENTIRETY, isn't it?
Isn't that a FACT, FFFacts?
Isn't that one of the risks da GUBMINT took on when they so vigoursly fought the Net Worth Swipe for the last 6 years or so and refused to compromise and settle?
The SCOTUS could if they wanted to, INVALIDATE HERA IN IT'S ENTIRETY! They would simply rule HERA as enacted is unconstitutionally structured AND instead of trying to figure out what CONGRESS would have wanted instead of HERA or how to rewrite the statute, everything would revert back to preconservatorship! Let CONGRESS write the laws NOT SCOTUS!
Remember when David Thompson said, "Well, then you could find the 1st and 2nd Amendment invalid as well.."
Enjoyed the closing by David Thompson, quoting MC himself about the dangers of allowing a conservator to keep its wards profits and how it will upend conservatorship law forever if allowed to stand!
Also loved how the Chief Justice and many other Justices on the USSCT talked about the NATIONALIZATION OF THE TWINS BY DA GUBMINT!
Good times, good times!
Chuck Yeager, Pioneer of Supersonic Flight, Dies at Age 97; He personified era of pilots that moved the U.S. into the jet age
This is for Navy, in case he hasn't seen it yet, from todays WSJ:
Chuck Yeager, a folksy, hard-living daredevil who was the first aviator to break the sound barrier and became a symbol of bravery for generations of test pilots, astronauts and average Americans, died Monday at the age of 97.
The announcement, posted on his official Twitter account by his wife, Victoria, didn't provide any details. Writing that he died around 9 p.m. Eastern time, she said: "An incredible life well lived, America's greatest Pilot, & a legacy of strength, adventure, & patriotism will be remembered forever."
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who became friends with Gen. Yeager, called him a native son who "was larger than life and an inspiration for generations of Americans."
His death was also confirmed by the Associated Press.
A West Virginia native whose maverick streak didn't keep him from becoming an Air Force general, Gen. Yeager personified the thrill-seeking fraternity of flyboys that moved the U.S. into the jet age after World War II and later vaulted it toward space exploration.
As a brash 24-year-old, he left an indelible mark on history in October 1947 when his Bell X-1 rocketplane—named "Glamorous Glennis" after his first wife—was released from its mother ship and, spewing 6,000 pounds of thrust, accelerated as it climbed. For some 18 seconds, with Gen. Yeager and his ground crew in virtual disbelief, it flew faster than the speed of sound roughly 8 miles above Southern California's Muroc Field, later known as Edwards Air Force Base.
Accomplishing a feat that hordes of aviation experts and even many fellow pilots feared was impossible (pilots called it exploring "ugh-known" territory) Gen. Yeager succeeded despite a pair of broken ribs suffered in a horseback-riding accident two days earlier. Reflecting his pluck and contrarian nature, he kept his injuries secret from superiors and used part of a broom as a makeshift handle to ease the pain of closing the cockpit hatch. Both the experimental craft and its mission, following eight preparatory efforts, were so secret that official acknowledgment and celebration of the record-breaking flight didn't occur until more than a year later. Five years after that, Gen. Yeager set another record for flying at 1,650 miles per hour, or twice the speed of sound.
Gen. Yeager's small-town personality and grace under pressure—immortalized in Tom Wolfe's classic book "The Right Stuff"—made him a global celebrity, akin to aerospace icons such as Charles Lindbergh, who conquered the Atlantic in a solo flight, and Neil Armstrong, who was first to step on the lunar surface. President Harry S. Truman honored him at the White House, presenting a trophy calling the X-1 flight "an epochal achievement" that was "the greatest since the first successful flight" of the Wright Brothers.
Mr. Wolfe, who helped make Gen. Yeager a cultural superstar more than three decades later, wrote that "every hot pilot in the country" pined to follow the example of the X-1 "if you wanted to reach the top."
Like his famous predecessors, Gen. Yeager largely eschewed the limelight in later years, though at one point he served as an advertising spokesman for spark plugs and batteries on television.
Over time, his influence on aviation remained so strong that even now some airline pilots subconsciously tend to mimic his terse, staccato drawl during radio transmissions.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration head Jim Bridenstine, who recalled that as a young military aviator he admired Gen. Yeager, released a statement calling "Chuck's bravery and accomplishments" a "testament to the enduring strength that made him a true American original." The agency, Mr. Bridenstine added, "owes much to his brilliant contributions to aerospace science."
A World War II ace who later in his career went on to head a training outfit that prepared some of the first astronauts, he ridiculed reliance on automation demanded by the rigors of space flights—claiming a chimp could perform the necessary maneuvers. He rejected becoming an astronaut, Gen. Yeager famously explained, because he didn't want to fly anything "where you have to sweep the monkey crap off the seat before you get in."
Despite all his accomplishments, the wiry kid who grew up sharpshooting squirrels in the hollows of Appalachia refused to fit the more cerebral, self-controlled mold that came to be exemplified by NASA astronauts. In his first powered X-1 flight, Gen. Yeager executed an unauthorized roll and near-vertical climb. Other violations of protocols and flight plans were legendary, just like his impatience with engineering analyses that delayed test flight schedules.
His wisecracks and volatile personality alienated some early space pioneers, including astronaut Thomas Stafford, who never flew or trained with Gen. Yeager, but recalled stories that circulated around Edwards years afterward regarding colorful exploits inside and outside the cockpit.
"He had a reputation as a wise-ass with a huge super ego," the retired Air Force general said in a 2016 interview. After ejecting from an experimental F-104 rocket plane that was diving and spinning toward the ground, Gen. Stafford recalled, Gen. Yeager argued with engineers and other test pilots who criticized him for failing to keep the nose at the correct angle while seeking a world altitude record. "Yeager kept insisting he had enough airspeed to fly through it," according to Gen. Stafford, who concluded the flawed logic defied the laws of aerodynamics.
In his autobiography, Gen. Yeager blamed a malfunction for the accident, which burned part of his face and hands. Air Force investigators subsequently criticized Gen. Yeager for "purposely exceeding" recommended procedures "in order to attain a higher altitude." Nonetheless, his reputation for phenomenal concentration, cockpit reflexes and courage continued to grow.
While college degrees were routine in the astronaut corps, Gen. Yeager's high-school diploma and seat-of-the-pants approach disqualified him. But in his autobiography published in 1985, Gen. Yeager didn't hide his cocky attitude about inherent piloting skills. "I don't deny that I was damned good," he wrote. "If there's such a thing as 'the best,' I was at least one of the title contenders," he asserted, adding he "enjoyed just about every damned minute" of his adventures "because that's how I lived."
Born in Myra, W. Va., on Feb. 13, 1923, Charles Elwood Yeager was the second of five children whose father worked as a natural-gas driller and a railroad worker. He reveled in hunting and tramping through the woods, but in high school was considered a mediocre or poor student in most subjects.
He enlisted in the Army in the fall of 1941, first working as a mechanic and then winning his wings as a fighter pilot. He was shot down over France and evaded capture with the help of the French underground. Bucking Pentagon brass, he personally persuaded the Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to reinstate him to flight duty and ended up logging 60 combat sorties with more than a dozen verified "kills" in dogfights.
As an Air Force test pilot once World War II ended, he flew dozens of different airplane models—including a Russian-built fighter the Pentagon wanted to better understand—and lived through several harrowing near-crashes. When Gen. Yeager was promoted to major and took charge of a fighter squadron in West Germany at the height of the Cold War in 1955, according to his autobiography, he assumed "the Air Force had decided I'd had enough" close calls.
He retired with the rank of brigadier general in 1975. Gen. Yeager married a woman 41 years his junior after the death of his first wife in 1990, prompting a tabloid-style legal battle with his children. He continued to fly private planes, hunt, fish and make honorary appearances past the age of 90. He spent many of his last years in the bucolic northern California community of Grass Valley, near the Nevada border in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
The 50th anniversary of his historic accomplishment breaking the sound barrier, Gen. Yeager, then a beaming 74, piloted an F-15 fighter, dubbed "Glennis III," past Mach 1, again surpassing the speed of sound in his last official Air Force flight. "All that I am … I owe to the Air Force," he said in a speech to the crowd.
Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com
Credit: By Andy Pasztor
The sp could spike tomorrow IF a majority of the Justices pepper the
gubmint attorney with tough to answer questions, like, "Why would a conservator, take all of the profits from its wards?"
The old "death Spiral" and "may versus shall" BS arguments have not stood the test of time, and neither will the 8+ year Net Worth Swipe NOR the 12+ year "conservatorship"!
Justice is coming!
Another hit piece from "our friends" in the mortgage think tanks...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fannie-and-freddie-are-helping-american-homeowners-during-the-covid-recession-so-why-reprivatize-now-11607436106?siteid=yhoof2
The problem with MC from a JB administration standpoint is that he is too pro free market, a Libertarian in both form and substance! Take his over capitalization stance in the new Capital Rule, IT WILL RAISE GF'S AND THAT HURTS THE MIDDLE CLASS AND ALL AMERICANS SECURING A BASIC HUMAN NEED, HOUSING.
Don't you think JB, if given an open door by Collins, will put in a new Director, whose views are less free market and more pro middle class?
I think the dream of the D's has always been to put the twins under full governmental control to further their agenda of giving the lower and middle class as much assistance as possible and if they can do it while hobbling two of the most successful financial juggernauts in history, then that's just icing on the cake!
MC apparently said at his latest FSOC meeting, "I am not sure how many more of these meetings I have", an apparanent nod to the perils he faces with a ruling in Collins and the incoming new administration.
Will SM and the current administration throw MC under the bus and why? Stay tuned, we should find out shortly!
Quote: "In my opinion, ending the NWS is likely but overturning all of HERA is a very remote possibility. Time will tell."
I agree, while many Libertarians and critics of the mushrooming and prolific entrenched growth of the 4th Branch of government (even MC just substantially increased the head count at FHFA - don't worry the shareholders will pay for it!) dream of the SCOTUS overturning Humphrey's Executor and possibly eliminating HERA and FHFA, it looks like the SCOTUS will likely take a scalpel to HERA and REWRITE HERA!
I THOUGHT THE EDITING AND REWRITING OF LAWS WAS A POWER THE FOUNDING FATHERS GRANTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!
I think this brings a heady question here for a relatively young democracy, namely, WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH TO SECOND GUESS CONGRESSIONAL INTENT WHEN REWRITING AND EDITING UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES?
I believe Justice Thomas brought up this very point in Seila.
While I somewhat enjoy the intellectual parameters of this investment, my biggest surprise so far has been that SM, who has the power to end this governmental sham called the nws and 12+ year "conservatorship", has not done so!
Why do you think that is?
Very punny, but likely true if he gets anywhere near the reins of power here!
After rereading those emails from Jim Parrot to his "fellow travelers" and then realizing he is advising Joe Biden on US Housing Policy.....
What do you think?
Quote: "Also, your reason for the government asking the Supreme Court to take the case is incorrect. They want the 9-7 majority ruling that the APA claims can proceed to trial reversed, as well as possibly getting the case dismissed due to the succession clause. See the "Questions Presented" section on page 2 of the government's Petition for Writ of Certiorari."
INCORRECT? REALLY?
IN THEIR ORIGINAL WRIT FOR CERTIORARI, filed by JEFFREY B. WALL
Acting Solicitor General, on October 25th, 2019, No. 19-563, they said on Page 15, under REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION:
"Finally, the court of appeals’ decision is of immense
practical importance. The decision below raises the
possibility that the Third Amendment will be set aside,
with significant financial implications for the federal
government, the enterprises, and market participants.
In addition, legal uncertainty resulting from the decision may frustrate the federal government’s proposed
and ongoing efforts to reform the housing finance system and to end the ongoing conservatorships of the enterprises. The government therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant this petition for a writ of
certiorari and resolve this case this Term."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-563.html
SO WHY WOULD YOU SAY: "your reason for the government asking the Supreme Court to take the case is incorrect.", given that is what the US Acting Solicitor General stated when he asked the USSCT to hear their petition?
This is my quote that you said was incorrect:
"Given the national US governmental housing policy implications (the US Federal Government asked for SCOTUS to take this case because it has a direct impact on the future of US governmental housing policy), the SCOTUS could invalidate the NWS from its inception and give the Collins Plantiffs the remedy they are finally seeking."
Doesn't that sound alot like what JEFFREY B. WALL
Acting Solicitor General, on October 25th, 2019, said?
Of course they want to win and that is one of many reasons they petitioned the USSCT for a writ of certiorari, BUT FINALITY ON THE NET WORTH SWIPE IS IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE OF THE THE GOVERNMENTS HOUSING PLAN!
Therefore, I do believe that the USSCT could very well end this governmental fiasco of confiscating the profits of its wards over the last 8 plus years, under the guise of a questionable to begin with "conservatorship" that has lasted 12+ years, and possibly jettison HERA in its entirety as it decides what to do here.
I think all of us are trying to figure out why the US Government continues its NATIONALIZATION of 2 private corporations!
Let's see what SCOTUS ends up doing. SM has the power to end this BUT HASN'T YET AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING!
For SM to say on the one hand, 4 YEARS AGO to say, "WE NEED TO GET THEM OUT OF CONSERVATORSHIP, IT'S ONE OF OUR TOP TEN GOALS!", THEN ON THE OTHER HAND CONTINUE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NET WORTH SWIPE (VIA AN INCREASE IN THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE) IS HARD TO RECONCILE!
Sure you could say he wanted "Political Cover" by the SCOTUS, BUT HIS ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!
Given the national US governmental housing policy implications (the US Federal Government asked for SCOTUS to take this case because it has a direct impact on the future of US governmental housing policy), the SCOTUS could invalidate the NWS from its inception and give the Collins Plantiffs the remedy they are finally seeking.
Plus any announcement after trading hours could cause the SP to literally take off like a one way rocket!
You know, back in the day (preconservatorship) Fannie Mae was a major underwriter of the PBS News Hour! I can hardly watch it anymore AS IT IS SO SLANTED TO THE LEFT IN ALL THEIR REPORTING! Whoever is editing the stories or approves them must have the biggest leftie slant I have ever seen!
I am sure Jim Lehrer, a former Marine, co-creator of the News Hour, and whose #1 Rule was report the news in an UNBIASED MANOR is spinning in his grave!
I am sure the part you will enjoy most is that your federal tax dollars are still supporting this kind of left leaning propaganda, so yes you are still donating to the cause!
"Subsequent amendments to the PSPAs may be appropriate to facilitate the implementation of any eventual recapitalization plans."
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm786
IF there is settlement and the Collins case is not ruled on by SCOTUS:
(1) Which Federal Court would JB have to file in to remove MC?
(2) IF there is a ruling in ANY of the OTHER Federal Circuits that found the Single Member director constitutional, wouldn't that result in MC being able to challenge the JB removal?
I have no idea, that's why I'm asking, has ANY OTHER Federal Circuit or Federal Court ruled that the FHFA Single Member director is NOT improperly insulated and thus constitutional?
I'm asking for a friend!
Thanks! Should be interesting at SCOTUS next week, I guess SM decided not to settle with the Collins Plaintiffs and is going to throw MC under the bus!
I think the days of the Net Worth Swipe are numbered! Interesting times ??!
Not sure what SCOTUS is going to do, BUT I think it was UST or DOJ that urged them to take the case as it is has a large impact on the policy of the US government for Housing policy. I also wouldn't be surprised at all if they do rule the nws is an invalid action and must be set aside BECAUSE it was done by an unconstitutionally insulated federal agency director and is void an initio under an APA Claim.
Another real possibility is for SCOTUS to remand back to the 5th to determine an appropriate retrospective remedy, which is why Collins is at SCOTUS to begin with!
Depending on how many of the Justices believe that the government has acted horribly here and if they take any of Tim Howards Amicus Brief as true, they could jettison HERA in its entirety.
Should make for a great 90 minutes next week!
I don't have a good reason as to why SM HAS NOT UNILATERALLY ENDED THE NWS, HOW CAN HE AS A BUSINESS PERSON POSSIBLY BACK SUCH AN ABUSE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER? For 4 years he said he wanted to "get them out of government control" and it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT WITH THE NWS IN PLACE.
Maybe he will do something before he leaves, but it seems like he is throwing MC under the bus, as it seems almost certain SCOTUS will find him fireable at will!
True, but things have changed a little since the EnBanc 5th Circuit Collins decision in September of 2018?
For some reason I enjoy your glass half full, skeptical views! But don't you think that this will take off like a rocket once the nws ends, the warrants are resolved, and a consent Decree is issued? What if Maxine found out about SM's plans to finish the last unfinished business from the Great Financial Crisis administratively as SM and MC HAVE GIVEN PLENTY OF NOTICE THAT THEY WILL GET IT DONE IF CONGRESS DOESN'T!
From a risk reward standpoint do you really want to be standing on the sidelines??!
If one of the other federal circuit courts ruled that MC is NOT unconstitutionally insulated, then wouldn't there be a splint amongst the federal circuit courts and MC could challenge a JB removal "at will", THAT IS IF COLLINS IS NOT RULED ON!
Didn't one of the other Federal Circuits rule that MC'S Directorship is constitutional, and the single member director, fireable "for cause" does NOT violate the separation of powers doctrine?
Have the $30B overpayment to solve the warrants problem, that might be a good way to do it!