Replies to post #714034 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2020

As I recall, I counted references to Nationalization 20 times when initially going over the oral argument transcript when it was initially available.

This is from the Index on the final Transcripts:

nationalization [7] 13:19 14:22
64:6,16 71:10 72:19 104:3
nationalize [1] 12:22
nationalized [6] 12:17,23 13:9 19:
23,23 65:4
nationalizing [2] 12:19 62:20

But it seems that you are correct in that only Breyer asked if a Takings Clause Lawsuit was filed.

Seems crystal clear to me that when a conservator takes ALL YOUR NET PROFITS AND SWEEPS THEM INTO THE US TREASURY IN RETURN FOR NOTHING WITH NO END DATE, YOU HAVE A NATIONALIZATION!

Collins maintains it was within the power of the government under HERA to do so, and the COFC 3 Judge Appellate Panel seems to have indicated that the shareholders had no right to exclude.

However implicit in the COFC Appellate Panel Judges reasoning is that shareholders should have expected that the government would use its lawful power to create a perpetual stream of income OF ALL THEIR WARDS PROFITS for itself with the adoption of the Net Worth Sweep and that seems preposterous!

But this could just be par for the course as the federal judiciary refuses to reign in these abusive governmental actors.

[Louie_Louie]

Nationalization was mentioned like 7 times by SCOTUS during Collins deliberations by (I think) 2-3 justices. See Gorsuch's dissenting opinion also

[altruism]

Government sponsored enterprises… building a quite case over the next 15 years of continued increasing seniors to the point where repaying the government won’t be an option and nationalizing will be the only option for a securing mortgage industry… it’s in the play book..