Is it possible for plaintiffs to amend Collins on remand in 5th circuit complaint to include the Non-Delegation Doctrine being argued in the Bhatti case? It seems these judges would be most receptive to this argument. They agreed that the incidental powers section DOES NOT permit the FHFA to supersede its duties as a conservator (to preserve and conserve). And if it DOES permit it as SCOTUS ruled, there is a non-delegation doctrine issue here due to HERA failing to articulate an intelligible principle to guide FHFA's exercise of discretion. This is because as the ruling currently stands, that 1 incidental powers line that allows FHFA to act in its own best interest essentially renders all 261 pages of HERA irrelevant. Why did Congress even bother listing out all the duties of a conservator if none of them apply/matter?
Tim didn’t find this a worthy response to his response to my last post. Perhaps you might entertain it here.
JULY 16, 2021 AT 1:01 PM
Please take the last word, but I hope you can receive this clarification and elaboration. We are very close on this.
Of course it’s not as though nine justices agreed on one verdict (A) out of several verdict-options (A, B, C…). In essence they merely agreed on A vs not-A. Even as rare as that is, given that they never rule unanimously, it’s therefore not as though all nine justices ruled unusually or other than they might have ruled. One side had to gain at least five votes. If we would have won 5-4, then five justices were possibly manipulated, not nine.
When I say common knowledge, what I mean is it has been widely covered on Fox News (Tucker), Fox Business (Maria), and CNBC Closing Bell (Rosner and Bove). I believe that goes beyond nobody other than plaintiffs and investors.
My point is I don’t see the justices as any different than Mnuchin. Mnuchin came out on the air swinging against the #Fanniegate corruption of the NWS as it related to funding pet programs, then he radically walked back his comments. We all saw it. Did he become persuaded by the false narrative, or might something else have happened? I’m not talking about the Calabria factor as it related to recapitalization, but rather I’m focusing on his amnesia regarding the true narrative. Something happened overnight, and there’s no way that *he* became persuaded by a false narrative.
But even if five justices ruled contrary to how they would have had they not been exposed to a false narrative, what precisely is in the false narrative that would cause a justice to rule unjustly? That “greedy hedge funds” would make money is hardly a tenable reason for a justice to break their oath. Something more sinister than the WSJ’s narrative seems more plausible to me.
But, even if I’m wrong, I don’t see how a false narrative promulgated by the Federalist Society that ends up getting nine justices who never agree to agree is any less of a conspiracy theory. That too is a sinister conspiracy theory, and a darn reasonable one at that!
Something extraordinary happened, so I think it must be for extraordinary reasons. Our only difference is, how sinister was it?
Hi ROLG, you mentioned on Howards blog that you wanted to do a deep dive into Lamberth potential damages. I wanted to share something with you re: the subject. Can you open up your twitter DM so I can send it privately? Thanks
ROLG,
Is it possible for plaintiffs to amend Collins on remand in 5th circuit complaint to include the Non-Delegation Doctrine being argued in the Bhatti case? It seems these judges would be most receptive to this argument. They agreed that the incidental powers section DOES NOT permit the FHFA to supersede its duties as a conservator (to preserve and conserve). And if it DOES permit it as SCOTUS ruled, there is a non-delegation doctrine issue here due to HERA failing to articulate an intelligible principle to guide FHFA's exercise of discretion. This is because as the ruling currently stands, that 1 incidental powers line that allows FHFA to act in its own best interest essentially renders all 261 pages of HERA irrelevant. Why did Congress even bother listing out all the duties of a conservator if none of them apply/matter?
Tim didn’t find this a worthy response to his response to my last post. Perhaps you might entertain it here.
JULY 16, 2021 AT 1:01 PM
Please take the last word, but I hope you can receive this clarification and elaboration. We are very close on this.
Of course it’s not as though nine justices agreed on one verdict (A) out of several verdict-options (A, B, C…). In essence they merely agreed on A vs not-A. Even as rare as that is, given that they never rule unanimously, it’s therefore not as though all nine justices ruled unusually or other than they might have ruled. One side had to gain at least five votes. If we would have won 5-4, then five justices were possibly manipulated, not nine.
When I say common knowledge, what I mean is it has been widely covered on Fox News (Tucker), Fox Business (Maria), and CNBC Closing Bell (Rosner and Bove). I believe that goes beyond nobody other than plaintiffs and investors.
My point is I don’t see the justices as any different than Mnuchin. Mnuchin came out on the air swinging against the #Fanniegate corruption of the NWS as it related to funding pet programs, then he radically walked back his comments. We all saw it. Did he become persuaded by the false narrative, or might something else have happened? I’m not talking about the Calabria factor as it related to recapitalization, but rather I’m focusing on his amnesia regarding the true narrative. Something happened overnight, and there’s no way that *he* became persuaded by a false narrative.
But even if five justices ruled contrary to how they would have had they not been exposed to a false narrative, what precisely is in the false narrative that would cause a justice to rule unjustly? That “greedy hedge funds” would make money is hardly a tenable reason for a justice to break their oath. Something more sinister than the WSJ’s narrative seems more plausible to me.
But, even if I’m wrong, I don’t see how a false narrative promulgated by the Federalist Society that ends up getting nine justices who never agree to agree is any less of a conspiracy theory. That too is a sinister conspiracy theory, and a darn reasonable one at that!
Something extraordinary happened, so I think it must be for extraordinary reasons. Our only difference is, how sinister was it?
Grateful for your service.
Ron
Hi ROLG, you mentioned on Howards blog that you wanted to do a deep dive into Lamberth potential damages. I wanted to share something with you re: the subject. Can you open up your twitter DM so I can send it privately? Thanks