Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

1) For cause removal is unconstitutional per SCOTUS

For CFPB, yes. For FHFA, most likely (though there are other nuances).

2) Bhatti/Collins are the first in line to come to a relief

Collins, yes. Bhatti is at a standstill as far as I can tell.

3) Because “for cause” is illegal U.S.C. §§ 4511(a), 4512(b)(2), 4617(a)(7), and 4617(f); need to be stricken from HERA (see above)

Nope, "see above" is nowhere even close to enough proof for the wild claims you are making.

1) 4511(a) will be slightly modified to fit constitutionality, most likely by removing the word "independent". Note the Supreme Court's quote "We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today."
2) Yes, 4512(b)(2) will be modified to remove the words "for cause".
3) 4617(a)(7) has nothing to do with the Selia ruling. The president is not an agency.
4) 4617(f) also has nothing to do with the Selia ruling.

4) and because of that and because SCOTUS thinks a single director has too much executive (unaccountable) power, 4617(f) also needs to be granted and because 4617(f) is granted the courts are allowed to rule and can take action

4617(f) only concerns FHFA as conservator or receiver.

Which case specifically challenges 4617(f), and what does today's Supreme Court ruling have to do with it?

5) (a) Article II vests the entire “executive Power” in the President alone,

Yes. But the Supreme Court fixed the constitutional defect by making the smallest possible change. The Fifth Circuit en banc panel already did the same thing with HERA, so today's Supreme Court precedent means it almost certainly will do the same.

6) All cases that lack standing because of HERA 4617 certainly have merit and no longer can be dismissed because of 4617(f)

Your expectation that the Supreme Court will strike down 4617(f) is completely unfounded, and thus this point is too.