Replies to post #393855 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[jeddiemack]

So, have these two judges effectively redefined what a "conservator is and what a conservator can do under the typical" definitions?

con·ser·va·tor
k?n's?rv?d?r,k?n's?rv??tôr,'käns?r?vad?r/
noun
noun: conservator; plural noun: conservators

a person responsible for the repair and preservation of works of art, buildings, or other things of cultural or environmental interest.
US
a guardian or protector.
"the court does not need to appoint a conservator to handle an incapacitated person's affairs"

Seemingly, that is what has occurred.

If this is the situation, shouldn't judges everywhere be scared?

What is worse, what does that portend to society as a whole?


I guess this definition of a conservator no longer applies, either.

conservator

n. a guardian and protector appointed by a judge to protect and manage the financial affairs and/or the person's daily life due to physical or mental limitations or old age. The conservator may be only of the "estate" (meaning financial affairs), but may be also of the "person," when he/she takes charge of overseeing the daily activities, such as health care or living arrangements of the conservatee. The process is that a relative or friend petitions the local superior court for appointment of a specific conservator, with written notice served on the potential conservatee. The object of this concern is interviewed by a court-appointed investigator to determine need, desire and understanding of the potential conservatee as well as the suitability of the proposed conservator. An open hearing is held before the appointment is made. The conservator is required to make regular accountings which must be approved by the court. The conservator may be removed by order of the court if no longer needed, upon the petition of the conservatee or relatives, or for failure to perform his/her duties. (See: conservatee, guardian)

[harding0]

thanks obit. as much as i want to impugn millet, ginsberg and lamberth i think they were trying to avoid appearing as if "legislating from the bench." that is they applied a textualist approach to the statute, keying in on the word "may", and concluding that it permits rather than compels conservator behavior. obviously when looking at the result that is the nws this seems absurd, but to the judges, an absurd result doesnt necessarily violate the statute (lamberth said as much when he wrote nws may engender feelings of discomfort).

how do you see this affecting the delaware case? i believe judge sleet argued that hera's antiinjunction provision does not preempt delaware law, and therefore the courts can proceed in determining whether nws violated 151(c). do you have any opinions on how strong this argument is?