Replies to post #618033 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

It is not only “for cause” that is questioned, plaintiffs have established following to be outside the separation of powers:

Wrong again. The plaintiffs have not established these things, they have alleged them. The vast, vast difference between these two things cannot be understated.

The Fifth Circuit en banc panel only ruled on 4512(b)(2). Since they set the precedent, any claims that the Supreme Court must invalidate anything else are incorrect.

So if SCOTUS decides only “for cause” the others BECOME automatically void ab initio

False. You have it backwards. If the Supreme Court only changes the "for cause" part, everything else stands.

if one small part is missing in the engine the motor doesn’t work anymore that is the case here, HERA was written that way.

Third strike already. The Supreme Court is going to use a scalpel, not a bulldozer. Also, changing just "for cause" does not cause the rest of HERA to fall down: if it did then the Fifth Circuit en banc panel would have said so.

[Donotunderstand]

Not a Lawyer

but fail to understand why if SCOTUS speaks to a director that should not be so free to act (and needs ability to be removed without cause by EXEC)

fail to understand why the rest follow as you note

seems to me the parts can EASILY continue to work if the Director needs cause or does not to be fired

just do not understand that logic

So if SCOTUS decides only “for cause” the others BECOME automatically
void ab initio, (it doesn’t matter if only “for cause” or all of them are illegal "for cause" is enough)