Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Cash47873]

He can't make any. Precedent is key here. If the court has asked for the stay for efficiency sake it is highly plausible there is legal precedent that will serve as guidance for all these cases. That legal precedent can come from AIG or Sally Mae or other cases or it can be based on constitutional law that the court may see as establishing the common denominator of all the collective suits.
It certainly seems more plausible that because all of these cases are being brought to court under the same charges of violating constitutional law that they could all be adequately served by the courts upholding of these constitutional rights.
What is less plausible is that the court, without due process, would uphold the defendants claims that the executive order that the president established to allow for their seizure of all the GSE profits and assets is legal.

Do you really think that an executive order made in 2012 to allow for this seizure could be upheld by any precedent?

Do you really think that a change to the constitutionality of an illegal seizure of private property could be upheld without ever seeing its day in court or would it not seem more plausible that if formal proceedings are to be forgone that there is reason for the courts to agree that THE GOV IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION?

MH is quick to draw conclusions but has an epic failure at defending those conclusions with any argument.

I could say that in 25 years the sky will change from blue to red and up will be down and down will be up but if I can't offer a spit lick worth of an argument to support this it is merely words on a page with absolutely zero meaning.

$Fnma