Replies to post #587117 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

Okay, You were very thorough in correcting my Norm Crosby-like attempts to word my basically correct understanding that 2 opposing parties were requesting cert for differing reasons, and I am appropriately chastened if that was at all part of your intent,

No chastening intended. Was unable to answer the question as asked and sought clarification.

but you stopped short of answering my question.

Yes. It was not understood at that time.

Is there any precedent for, is it typical for SCOTUS to grant cert for one part of a case, but not the other?

Yes, SCOTUS can limit cert to one of two questions and SCOTUS can also add a question or restate a question presented.

A recent example of an added question is Seila Law LLC, Petitioner v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Oct 18 2019 - Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act? - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-7.html

In addition to grants and denials, there are relistings and holds. Relistings, like scheduling a conference, can be found in the docket (e.g. See Seila Law - Oct 11 and Oct 18 for conferences) Holds are not reported.