Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Judge Schlitz is embracing the bizarre proposition articulated by Justice Thomas that POTUS could have fired Mel Watt at will, DESPITE HERA SAYING IT WAS FORBIDDEN.

Thus advocating that a future POTUS can always ignore the law if in fact that law is Unconstitutional and the courts have yet to rule on the laws Constitutionality.

Since POTUS always had the power to fire the FHFA Director (but didn't know it - just like Toto and Dorothy could always return to Kansas but didn't know) it means Plaintiff Shareholders receive ZERO in recovery, according to J. Schlitz (page 12 - I added bold):

"In other words, the President
always had the power to remove the FHFA director (much like, in the Wizard of Oz,
Dorothy always had the power to return to Kansas).  Cf. id. at 1793 (Thomas, J.,
concurring) (“while the [removal] provision does conflict with the Constitution, the
Constitution has always displaced it and the President has always had the power to fire
the Director for any reason”).  Combined with the Court’s holding that every FHFA
director had full authority to carry out the functions of his office, it is hard to imagine
how the removal restriction that never had legal effect could have caused any legally
cognizable harm, as any harm would have been due to the President’s own mistake of
law and not to any unlawful action by a director.2"

Since lawsuits cost time and money, these types of rulings destroy a major motivation for American Citizens to challenge Unconstitutional Statutes written by the Legislative Branch and embolden any future POTUS to IGNORE THE LAW AND DO WHAT HE WANTS UNDER THE GUISE OF "WHAT I'M DOING IS CONSTITUTIONAL THEREFORE ITS OKAY TO IGNORE THE LAW."