Saturday, July 11, 2020 1:53:23 PM
No it isn't, and this is the fallacy I have seen repeated many times.
Here is an easy way to show that your statement is wrong. Take the quote that has been repeated: "The court also agreed to weigh in on issues relating to the statute under which the FHFA became the conservator."
Now change it to read "The court also agreed to weigh in on issues relating to the statute under which the FHFA became the regulator." One word has changed, the statement still accurately reflects the situation, but conservatorship is not mentioned.
The statement you refer to means the Supreme Court can review the entire conservatorships, not that they will. And an analysis of their Selia opinion shows that there is no real reason to believe that they will do so. In addition, the Collins case does not challenge the conservatorship and the questions put before the Court do not touch on it either.
Thinking that the Supreme Court will review the conservatorships is just plain wishful thinking, and it ignores the very real possibility that the Supreme Court doing so could be bad for current shareholders.
Glidelogic Corp. Becomes TikTok Shop Partner, Opening a New Chapter in E-commerce Services • GDLG • Jul 5, 2024 7:09 AM
Freedom Holdings Corporate Update; Announces Management Has Signed Letter of Intent • FHLD • Jul 3, 2024 9:00 AM
EWRC's 21 Moves Gaming Studios Moves to SONY Pictures Studios and Green Lights Development of a Third Upcoming Game • EWRC • Jul 2, 2024 8:00 AM
BNCM and DELEX Healthcare Group Announce Strategic Merger to Drive Expansion and Growth • BNCM • Jul 2, 2024 7:19 AM
NUBURU Announces Upcoming TV Interview Featuring CEO Brian Knaley on Fox Business, Bloomberg TV, and Newsmax TV as Sponsored Programming • BURU • Jul 1, 2024 1:57 PM
Mass Megawatts Announces $220,500 Debt Cancellation Agreement to Improve Financing and Sales of a New Product to be Announced on July 11 • MMMW • Jun 28, 2024 7:30 AM