Hi Blushing green, the article is a partial analysis and brief commentary and opinion on a select issue in the Bhatti v. FHFA/Treasury (violation of the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution). Also, the author attempts to suss out the Judge Schlitz's leanings in the case by pointing out a few comments made in the oral argument transcript. And by explicating the merits of the Plaintiff's Appointments Clause claim, the author has expectations that Judge Schiltz may find Defendants in violation of the Appointments Clause, in line with SEC v.Lucia, and thus, vacate the Net Worth Sweep.
The article demonstrates the author's Bhatti case knowledge and displays intellectual prowess and mastery of the relevant case law. The author's hopeful expectations for and belief that Judge Schlitz shouldrule in favor of the Plaintiffs in accordance with the "judicial sustenance" given in SEC v. Lucia is wishful thinking, an entitlement all can engage in.
Judge Schlitz will rule as he is, personally, as do all judges. We only need to wait.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
