Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

These are the Defendants Reply Briefs that were filed on the 04/03/23 deadline for filing the briefs.

The FHFA is asking for oral arguments!

So you think that the Oral arguments will go forward on time, despite the fact that one of the issues raised on appeal deals with the Appropriations Clause issue that will be decided next term by the SCOTUS?

Are you thinking that based on these statement from the FHFA/UST in their Defendants Reply Briefs?:

FHFA:

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The FHFA Defendants-Appellees respectfully submit that oral argument
would be helpful to the Court in analyzing the important constitutional issues posed
by this case.

UST:

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The Treasury Department respectfully requests oral argument in this case. This
case concerns whether the district court correctly resolved a remedial issue remanded
to it from the Supreme Court following the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v.
Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021). The Court’s resolution of that issue has implications
for the government’s multi-billion-dollar rescue of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. The government believes oral argument could provide substantial assistance to this Court in understanding the issues in the case.

It looks like the UST is going to argue that the FHFA'S funding mechanism satisfies the Appropriations Clause:

UST:

FHFA’s Funding Mechanism Satisfies the Appropriations
Clause ...

Wouldn't it make sense to let the SCOTUS decide this issue next term before having the 5th Circuit Appealate Court decide this issue?