Replies to post #740223 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

neither

Scotus re EPA is a situation where SCOTUS (not elected) (not congress) is deciding what the congress (elected) meant in a law - here the EPA

The process is --- congress writes the law and then it is up to Executive - Agency to read and implement the law. Agencies do not go back to CONGRESS and ask questions. It is the Job - done tens of thousands of times - of the agency to implement the law based on what it believes congress meant in each sentence.

So congress - elected - writes a law
(as it did with HERA)

once it is written there is then DEBATE about what it means -- here and there (as the agency - executive - implements)

So ---- corporations (not elected) argue with agency (not elected) about pollution and such (scope of EPA authority to act based on the Congress written law) and when there is a suit ---- courts and maybe even SCOTUS (not elected) --- decide what congress (elected) meant when the law was written

The agency is not elected and SCOTUS is not elected --- both are set in motion by the executive (if it acts legally within its scope).

Another example of SCOTUS - not elected - saying what Congress did or did not do is the SCOTUS read recently of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed there it was nearly insane. They did not rule on what Congress meant to say --- there Congress kept a half - dozen or so states under DOJ supervision on election issues ------ but SCOTUS (not elected) decided to gut that Congressional evaluation (elected) and said Congress (elected) was wrong - wrong - in their evaluation of the continued need for oversight in the law Congress wrote that had Congress review every so often. THE CORUT SAID CONGRESS WAS DUMB and should not control its own law

Now we will see on affirmative action - where its about elected rep laws. The P case argues - the judges said --- the law is old and not needed - everyone plays on a level field these days. So that is in essence what the court is deciding -- is the law - actions - still needed to achieve objectives everyone agrees are good - equal access. (Do we STILL need some level of "unlevel" to get to level

I do not have an answer on balance of powers. Best I can tell when NOT a constitutional issue - Congress can get out its pens and write AGAIN what they mean when they say Court over stepped. It is the job of SCOTUS to decide what CONGRESS meant with a law or regulation. SCOTUS is not to write law --- be it a liberal or conservative SCOTUS. If it rules in a way Congress disagrees then Congress should take control and write a new with clarity. (HERA EPA VRA)

BUT since congress is now fully constipated --- SCOTUS decisions on what Congress meant with a law stand

(e.g. Congress reading the insane comment/decision by SCOTUS ALITO et al -- that FHFA is the PUBLIC -- should have picked up their pens and written and passed a 2 sentence law saying FHFA does not stand in for the PUBLIC in cases of A and B and C ---- but congress has defaulted its power to SCOTUS (and some - many L and R - would argue defaulted its power to Executive as well) In the long run it seems to have worked --- but in the short term - ouch

[Donotunderstand]

the key phrase

agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted. (You will agree that is a subjective decision call - it is not an absolute)

who decides that -- and are those decision makers elected any more than the agency heads --- all appointed by Executive and approved by SENATE

[jeddiemack]

The crooked concept of "decide for the best interest of the public it serves" whomever that public is... which is certainly a question of who that actually is ... can not be or should not be allowed to be at the damage to others.

I mean even the concept of "imminent domain" has to provide just compensation for that which is taken.

In this case that taking, Needs to be valued and paid for. What is that taking in this case??? since while they've not actually taken anything other than equity of the entities ... by writing a contract with themselves... makes it a better play for future immenit domain cases... so local government just have put the properties in conservatorship, then write agreement between themselves and then just excercise that agreement... as "in the best interest"...

Really sort of illogical... like this once in a life time "net worth" sweep... crazy.... made up stuff needs to be squelched. and an end put to it or it will be done again ... don't let it.

[LuLeVan]

Why should FHFA bureaucrats ever think of abolishing themselves by ending conservatorship? It is so convenient - and "in the interest of the public" (themselves) - to collect paychecks every month forever.

In other words: There is a lack of incentive to implement what is long overdue.