Replies to post #711014 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

“Now to make sense of it”. Or nonsense. Blocked.

[Ace Trader]

Thank you for your in-depth review.
May I add that SCOTUS in many eyes got the ruling wrong? Or did they really mean this.

.......................Quote.........................
Then apart from the fact that the SCOTUS ruled the structure is unconstitutional, another problem occurs, if the president controls the director of the FHFA absent 4512(b)(2), it cannot forbid Judicial review on his actions in 4617(f) but if it cannot forbid judicial review the APA could not have failed in SCOTUS, as the SCOTUS said relief is prohibited by HERA 4617(f)

This can be compressed to following problems in Collins/Bhatti/Rop/Wazee
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates 44 U.S.C. § 3502(b)(2) “board”
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates 12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) “independent”
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates 12 U.S. Code § 4516(f)(2) “Not Government funds”
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7) “FHFA not subject to any agency”
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) “no judicial review possible”

The problems plaintiffs in these cases identified are of course limited, but there are multiple other problems the FHFA faces with other provisions and authority, cutting corners however is not possible
.............................................................

We are at point A, and point E is the finish line. But we can't award you point E as the lower courts must be involved and rule accordingly as well. So head back to the 5th court sort out point B. Other law suits are working on point C and D and latter down the line we will all arrive back here to sort out point E

Someone pass me a another beer, this is going to take a while

[kthomp19]

everything that the SCOTUS says must be considered law

Good to see you acknowledge that. Now get it through your skull that this includes the fact that 4617(f) is fully legal and 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) is constitutional.

Now to make sense of it

When you finally do so, let me know. Nothing in your post after this made any sense at all.

if the president controls the director of the FHFA absent 4512(b)(2), it cannot forbid Judicial review on his actions in 4617(f) but if it cannot forbid judicial review the APA could not have failed in SCOTUS, as the SCOTUS said relief is prohibited by HERA 4617(f)

Once again you have either failed to read or failed to understand the Collins ruling.

The Supreme Court says 4617(f) only forbids judicial review of valid acts of a conservator or receiver:

The anti-injunction clause applies only where the FHFA exercised its “powers or functions” “as a conservator or a receiver.” Where the FHFA does not exercise but instead exceeds those powers or functions, the anti-injunction clause imposes no restrictions.

[Louie_Louie]

The whole court system is a nightmare "who's on first" routine on this whole saga. They keep making botched rulings to CYA for government, and now the smart lawyers are hopefully turning the tables with those sorry azz'd rulings. One court cant rule correctly in hopes of clearing the case in front of them because it may or will adversely affect another government case somewhere....yeeeehaw, good for the idiots.

Maybe (hopefully) all the case lawyers will strategize against the corrupt court system?

Maybe there's real hope going in that direction? Judges making these obtuse, confusing, and erroneous rulings that only a donkey can understand has got to come back and bite'm eventually....you would hope.