Bio not provided
I don't disagree with anything in this article. However, I <em>do</em> disagree with Judge Lamberth's ruling, because it was premised primarily on the fact that the relief sought by the plaintiffs "runs up against HERA’s anti-injunction provision, which declares that 'no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of [FHFA] as a conservator or a receiver.' 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f)." I don't understand how Congress can simply decree that any case involving federal law is outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts. How does that meet the standard of due process? There is nothing in either Article III or Article I of the Constitution which gives Congress that power. This leaves plaintiffs without even the <em>possibility</em> of a remedy. Granted, these particular plaintiffs may be undeserving of any remedy in this specific situation, but that will not always be the case.
Judge Lamberth should have decided the case on the merits (along the lines outlined by Mr. Stockman), not "punted" on the basis of an unconstitutional denial of jurisdiction.
2 weeks, 4 days ago on Kudos To Judge Lamberth: Bubkis Hedge Fund Claims Against Freddie/Fannie Get Heave-Ho
Ratification of the first 10 Amendments was completed on December 15, 1791.
1 year, 5 months ago on Resolutions of 1798: Guideposts of Limited Government