Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

SCOTUS set a precedent in Collins that lower courts MUST follow. A precedent includes an opinion on a controversy, and, a separate opinion explaining a judgment, the latter of which is better known as ‘remedy’.

In Collins, Alito’s remedy analysis (with *7 votes*) was old familiar ground: when deciding whether to just excise a clause, or, put the kibosh on a WHOLE statute, time & again, the same logic is repeated: ‘we think that given a choice at the law’s inception, Congress would’ve preferred the lawful statute (as we now explain it), to no statute at all’. That analysis —and the tiny number of relevant factors actually used by Alito in the lead opinion—preclude validity to the assertion you’re making. Whether Congress used the label “independent”,whether they insisted FHFA be run off budget, or whether it be run from a hidden base on the dark side of the moon, the fact remains that the agency structure had only 1 defect, and it was cured. If Congress wants to change things … so be it. But don’t leap to the conclusion that SCOTUS has any basis to do so. Been there, rejected that.