Replies to post #619990 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Guido2]

YOU GOT IT!

[kthomp19]

Since the statute is the rationale/foundation for the conservatorship, isn't "weighing in" on the statute essentially reviewing the cship itself?

No it isn't, and this is the fallacy I have seen repeated many times.

Here is an easy way to show that your statement is wrong. Take the quote that has been repeated: "The court also agreed to weigh in on issues relating to the statute under which the FHFA became the conservator."

Now change it to read "The court also agreed to weigh in on issues relating to the statute under which the FHFA became the regulator." One word has changed, the statement still accurately reflects the situation, but conservatorship is not mentioned.

The statement you refer to means the Supreme Court can review the entire conservatorships, not that they will. And an analysis of their Selia opinion shows that there is no real reason to believe that they will do so. In addition, the Collins case does not challenge the conservatorship and the questions put before the Court do not touch on it either.

Thinking that the Supreme Court will review the conservatorships is just plain wishful thinking, and it ignores the very real possibility that the Supreme Court doing so could be bad for current shareholders.

[bcde]

"Since the statute is the rationale/foundation for the conservatorship, isn't "weighing in" on the statute essentially reviewing the cship itself?"

Yes, SCOTUS will not choose to rule on the main questions raised without deciding on the validity of the laws and how laws are being interpreted.