So this is the 1 paragraph opinion that you believe decides the question as to whether or not the Major Questions Doctrine DOESN'T apply here?
Didn't DeMarco say during testimony in Lamberth's trial (he made direct eye contact with me when he said it) that he also implemented the NWS to "let Congress fix the broken system"?
Was he wearing his conservatorship hat or Regulator hat when he implemented the NWS and Nationalized the 2 lynchpins of the US Secondary Mortgage Market?
From the 3 Judge Appealate Panel in the 8th Circuit Bhatti case and their one paragraph decision that invalidated the Major Questions Doctrine according to your legal analysis (I added bold):
"Congress’s delegation of authority directs the FHFA to act as a “conservator,” with clear and recognizable instructions.12 U.S.C. § 4617(a). “[T]he Agency is authorized to take control of a regulated entity's assets and operations, conduct business on its behalf, and transfer or sell any of its assets or liabilities.” Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1776,citing12 U.S.C. §§ 4617(b)(2)(B)-(C), (G). “When the FHFA exercises these powers, its actions must be ‘necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition’ and must be ‘appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve [its] assets and property.’” Id. (alteration in original), quoting 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D). “ Thus, when the FHFA acts as a conservator, its mission is rehabilitation, and to that extent, an FHFA conservatorship is like any other.” Id. There is one difference: “when the FHFA acts as a conservator, it may aim to rehabilitate the regulated entity in a way that, while not in the best interests of the regulated entity, is beneficial to the Agency and, by extension, the public it serves.” Id. But this difference clarifies that serving the public is one goal of the FHFA’s conservatorship; it does not render the delegation unintelligible. Seeid. (explaining how the FHFA works to rehabilitate housing in the public interest under the statute). In light of the Court’s identification of the principles guiding the FHFA, it is clear those principles are intelligible. See Saxton v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 901 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir. 2018) (Stras, J., concurring) (“The provision is broad but not boundless.”). Congress’s delegation in the Recovery Act was permissible. Id.at 963 (“Picking among different ways of preserving and conserving assets, deciding whose interests to pursue while doing so, and determining the best way to do so are all choices that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act clearly assigns to the FHFA, not the courts.”). This court affirmsdismissal of the nondelegation claim."
