Aside from the issue of a "protected CEO similar to a President" (and any FNMA related wins)
Exactly why do we want to lose our protection against pay day loans and usury on student loans and corruption ?
Seems to me the headlines are shouting what is a lie for 95% of the issue but true on its face
The type of protection the President - chief - CEO of Consumer and FHFA is too great relative to instructions from a more careful read of Constitution
Is there anything else at issue - either place ?
(And I know its not clear from precedent if this fault can be separated and corrected or both need to disappear over night) (Similar to the argument at ACA appeal - all or nothing seems crazy to me - but hey - I like to split the difference most of the time)