Replies to post #671668 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Barron4664]

KThomp19,

Thanks for letting me explain my reasonings. You and I have agreed to disagree on the scope of a potential SCOTUS ruling, however in my opinion, sticking to only the plaintiffs asking, will require the SCOTUS to go down the rabbit hole of mental gymnastics to keep the status quo. That is why I think the following 2 outcomes are possible: They find HERA unconstitutional (unlikely) or they remove the for-cause language to preserve the status quo of other agencies and find that the PSPA is a self dealing agreement or a null contract as it was signed by James Lockart who was not confirmed by the Senate. I recall that SCOTUS mentioned multiple times during oral arguments that actions by an acting or whatever you call James Lockart position are answerable to the President. They also mentioned a couple of times that they are dealing with a contract. Seems obvious to me that the non controversial ruling would stick with common law contract definitions and strike the PSPA and remand to lower courts to unscramble the mess.

The capital rule was a regulation of the United State Gov and as such is subject to the APA. If the rule was drafted by an unconstitutional independent director, then the basis and background and statutorial basis for the rule is moot. It would be an orphaned regulation. The rule will need to be re-proposed with full input from other executive agencies and white-house signoff with public notice and public comment period.

If the director is ruled to be answerable to the executive, then the HERA's statutory requirement of FHFA as conservator will contradict the common law definition of a conservator. This is the main reason that I believe HERA may be thrown out because the law will no longer be self consistent and illogical. If the director and his staff are no longer independent of the executive, then by definition, the actions of FHFA to re-IPO and raise capital will be an action of a regulatory agency that is subject to the APA and an illegal exaction of the existing shareholder property rights including rights of due process.