In Arthrex, Patent Office has no financial stake in the dispute. So the Director can review the ruling.
In Collins, FHFA Director cannot let gov to pay billions to plaintiffs. He, even if constitutional, cannot review objectively the NWS validity . Conflict of interests. The remedy must consider this. Simple voiding is proper. in oral argument, Gorsuch asked this question: void ab initio the whole contract?
I must say Gorsuch is rigorous and intelligent. His approach solves the problem completely. Otherwise, Washington Federal will ask the question later.
How unusual is it that SCOTUS skipped us over yesterday? Does doing so suggest they're awaiting input, like, worst case, Yellen's addressing situation in Sept?
Christian, Highly disappointing and costly decision. What are your thoughts on the way forward?
curious how a decision might look that would neither hurt FHFA/Treasury or plantiffs, if that's an option.
They always try to cut the baby in half whenever possible.
I don't think it is a halfway measure. It is voiding current ruling and a new review.
In Arthrex, Patent Office has no financial stake in the dispute. So the Director can review the ruling.
In Collins, FHFA Director cannot let gov to pay billions to plaintiffs. He, even if constitutional, cannot review objectively the NWS validity . Conflict of interests. The remedy must consider this. Simple voiding is proper. in oral argument, Gorsuch asked this question: void ab initio the whole contract?
I must say Gorsuch is rigorous and intelligent. His approach solves the problem completely. Otherwise, Washington Federal will ask the question later.
How unusual is it that SCOTUS skipped us over yesterday? Does doing so suggest they're awaiting input, like, worst case, Yellen's addressing situation in Sept?
Can you speculate on what impact a positive ruling on Collins might have on the more broad Washington Federal case?