Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

1. If you have time, set me straight.

The two judges affirmed Lamberth's ruling that the HERA and APA claims made by the Institutional plaintiffs was barred by HERA's limitation on judicial review at 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f)

In my layman mind, I can't help but find this entire scenario laughable. It appears to me that the Judges are being activists with collaboration via the legislative body and are setting precedent more or less rewriting the Constitution and upsetting the necessary and delicate balance of 3 separate but equal branches. Yielding their power of review based on what appears to me to be an unconstitutional phrase added to HERA by the legislative branch who created it.

All judges, from the lowest court to the Supreme Court, are biased and intellectually limited in many ways. There is no way around this human condition of the judges. Many persons on the receiving end of their rulings will experience the biases and relative degrees of intelligence of the judges and be almost helpless to do anything about it.

Rulings are interpretations of the law applied to the merits of a case. It is very easy for judges to shape interpretations of the law to fit their biased perspectives of the case, of the facts and merits of the case. Their legal intellects are not perfect and they will miss a fact, misunderstand a law, or a misapply legal principle when interpreting the law. These imperfect interpretations and applications of the law are more in accordance with conscious and non-conscious biases and limited legal intellection than the law itself. These biases and levels of legal intelligence cannot be easily removed by their own efforts. In many cases, the worse of them, are unaware of their frailties.

Is it not clear that Supreme Court Justices have publicly known biases and varying degrees of legal intellection? Are these inherent biases and limitations the reason why a court panel divides on the same case because they lack concurrence in the mustering facts and merits, and/or emphasizing one legal issue or principle over another and then come to clearly different opinion on the same case? Is this not the fundamental reason that opinions and rulings are overturned?

The judges were selected by equally flawed persons and this has resulted in a flawed judicial system where attorney strive in whatever way they can to bring their cases before particular judges that will favor their approach and position. There is no true and blind justice. There is just frail human beings deciding the matters of others equally frail.

2. But never mind if it is unconstitutional, because Judicial branch can't review since the potentially unconstitutional law prohibits constitutional review. What?

The judges play with this statute (12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) in their written opinion by indicating that it strictly or sharply limits judicial review but, later states that it does not close out judicial review absolutely. For example:

...We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).

...Turning to the merits, we address first the institutional stockholders’ claims that FHFA’s and Treasury’s adoption of the Third Amendment violated both the Recovery Act and the APA. Both of those statutory claims founder on the Recovery Act’s far-reaching limitation on judicial review. Congress was explicit in Section 4617(f) that “no court” can take “any action” that would “restrain or affect” FHFA’s exercise of its “powers or functions * * * as a conservator or a receiver.” 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We take that law at its word, and affirm dismissal of the institutional stockholders’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief designed to unravel FHFA’s adoption of the Third Amendment.

...Lastly, the Recovery Act sharply limits judicial review of FHFA’s conservatorship activities, directing that “no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator.” 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).

...the Recovery Act only limits judicial remedies (banning injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief) after a court determines that the actions taken fall within the scope of statutory authority. The Act does not prevent either constitutional claims (none are raised here) or judicial review through cognizable actions for damages like breach of contract.

3. Why didn't congress think of this sooner? Any and all laws, just include the limitation of judicial review and it's golden.

Why shouldn't the executive branch give it a go as well? Trump is wasting so much time fighting for his executive order on immigration. Should of just included a phrase that judicial review is barred. Boom! Done deal per what appears to me to be a kangaroo court.

It's as silly appearing to me as congress passing a law that then bans the executive branch from executing it.

The nonsense is worse than the Judicial branch or the Executive branch writing legislation.

I can't help but think that their actions are judicial activism and the decision would have been 180 degrees different had they not concurred with what HERA and the sweep has done and is attempting to do. I don't find the logic in the entirety of the situation.

Congress limiting judicial review has a long history in the US. The President also can limit judicial view of executive orders by simply using in an effective manner available law that restricts or bars judicial review. The Executive Branch Agencies also have access to limited or complete barring of judicial review in current law.

Source:
CADC Opinion - Perry
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1662090.pdf

Limiting Judicial Review by Act of Congress
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3789&context=californialawreview

"There shall be no judicial review"
http://bfy.tw/AFwW

"bars judicial review"
http://bfy.tw/AFwd

"no judicial review"
http://bfy.tw/AFwa