Yes, these are just restatements of the questions in front of the Supreme Court.
False. Question 3 doesn't address the legality of 4617(f). In fact, the question has an implicit assumption that 4617(f) is legal! Otherwise the question wouldn't make sense.
That's your answer to Question 4, but the Supreme Court might not agree. And, as with Question 3, this question has an implicit assumption that 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) is legal.
1) 4617(f) is assumed to be legal and will remain in place. HERA functions just fine with a changed removal clause and 4617(f) remaining intact. 2) 4617(f) has nothing to do with FHFA's lack of fiduciary duty to shareholders. How do you make such a connection?
I think what your saying is if the 3rd is severed. Any damages or financial consequences are to be decided by the 5th circuit court. Is that right. If so, and judge Atlas rules govt owes $200B(example) can’t the govt appeal, that is to high? And back we go to Supreme Court. I guess I’m hoping SCOTUS can set some criteria for damages allowed, so we aren’t in a prolonged circle.