Replies to post #670564 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[RickNagra]

I kinda read the letter the same way. It almost seems to me that the government wants to lose this case.

[RumplePigSkin]

Guido, certainly logical to think within the Treasury letter it would say something to the effect of “in response to your inquiry on [date], please see Treasury’s response below ...,” if Scotus prompted the letter.

Still, it took until March 18th to generate such a basic letter? I suppose it could take two months to get Biden’s approval as two months is two shakes of a lamb’s tail in swamp time.

I’ll correct Tim Howard on one item. He says subtle ... there is nothing subtle about that letter. It just reinforces how outrages Mnuchin’s Jan 14th LA was and how it does not moot the case. I reposted my posts speculating on the intent of Jan 14th LA the day the Treasury letter was released. Biden’s Treasury basically just affirmed it.

Were there back channels between Scotus and the Executive? Calabria also needs to go so Biden can move on his affordable housing mandate ... also giving Scotus an easy way to void this ...

Truly fascinating ...

[Golfbum22]

do you have what Rolg wrote that TH is referring to?

Tia

And

BOOM if admin wants us to win

[Golfbum22]

Here is the missing Rolg comment...

ruleoflawguy
MARCH 19, 2021 AT 8:59 PM
@Shane

so, a couple of things.

it could well be that this letter is a response to an inquiry SCOTUS made, logically though the Court’s clerk, regarding the import of the recent SPSA letter agreement. Typically in a reply letter from the SG such as you have posted, it would have been proper form for the reply letter to refer to the inbound inquiry and respond that this reply is in response to the Court’s inquiry. This is standard first year law firm associate level stuff.

also, it would have been highly improper for the Court to inquire of the SG without CCing Collins Ps counsel, so Cooper & Kirk should have a copy of this inquiry and will have an opportunity to respond as well, if such an inbound inquiry was made.

All of which is to say that such a SCOTUS inquiry may well have not been made. Generally, new POTUS administrations will look at the prior POTUS’s SG arguments in cases not yet decided and, if they disagree with the prior SG argument, make such disagreement known. This letter is not such a “flip” in administration policy…of which the Biden administration has had many recently, as did the Trump administration prior to it. I am not clear what the Biden administration’s stance on Collins is, per this letter, other than to correctly assert that the SPSA letter agreement did not moot the case.

I will speculate, however, that SCOTUS will recognize that this letter points out that the letter agreement does espouse a capital-building and rehabilitative purpose for the GSEs that is antithetical to the NWS…which is the Collins Ps argument for why the NWS is invalid! No impartial Justice can look at the NWS, the Collins Ps objections to the NWS, and then this letter agreement and not conclude that the Treasury has backed off on the objectives and purposes of the NWS….and I would think the Justices would not think the PSPA letter agreement furthers the government’s arguments in defense of the NWS. of course, the current SG could have lent support to the government’s position by saying times have changed, the GSEs are in a position to build up capital now but not at the time of the NWS, etc. which of course would have been a weak argument, and apparently understood to be so by the current SG.

rolg

Like