Read Lamberth’s decision on Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) below closely. What he essentially says here is that while the governments actions “raise eyebrows, or even engender a feeling of discomfort” , because HERA says those actions are beyond judicial review, they are ok. Let that sink in while you read it.

Lamberth on Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC):

It is understandable for the Third Amendment, which sweeps nearly all GSE profits to Treasury, to raise eyebrows, or even engender a feeling of discomfort.  But any sense of unease over the defendants’ conduct is not enough to overcome the plain meaning of HERA’s text. Here, the plaintiffs’ true gripe is with the language of a statute that enabled FHFA and, consequently, Treasury, to take unprecedented steps to salvage the largest players in the mortgage finance industry before their looming collapse triggered a systemic panic. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ grievance is really with Congress itself. It was Congress, after all, that parted the legal· seas so that FHFA and Treasury could effectively do whatever they thought was needed to stabilize and, if necessary, liquidate, the GSEs. Recognizing its role in the constitutional system, this Court does not seek to evaluate the merits of whether the Third Amendment is sound financial–or even moral-policy. The Court does, however, find that HERA’s unambiguous statutory provisions,
He says it is ok for Congress to pass a law that gives a government entity the power to “effectively do whatever they thought was needed” in a particular situation? So, if after 9/11 Congress gave the US military to “effectively do whatever they thought was needed” to find any potential terrorist in the US and said “no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of these powers”, everyone is good with that?
Now, the next question is, why wouldn’t Congress just include the HERA language in every law it passes from now on? Following Lamberth’s slovenly logic, as long as Congress says “no court may take any action to restrain” any laws it passes, any law is ok. Lamberth hangs his entire decision on the following sentence:

“no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of [FHFA] as a conservator or a receiver.”

If Congress decided to give the IRS more teeth and said the IRS could “effectively do whatever they thought was needed” to collect more taxes and said that “no court may take any action to restrain that” then any lawsuits challenging whatever the IRS decided would be tossed. Its easy, simply replace FHFA with IRS and “conservator or a receiver” with “tax collector” above…. That ought to scare the shit out of you……..

Now, Lamberth also says in his Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) decision:

Recognizing its role in the constitutional system, this Court does not seek to evaluate the merits of whether the Third Amendment is sound financial–or even moral-policy.

Lamberth here is abdicating his role in this case to Congress. He says since Congress said HERA is beyond judicial review, it is, period.

Of course, the White House says:

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.

If Lamberth’s role is not to determine the merits or morality of a law or action from Congress…..does anyone know what his role is???? The very role of the Judicial branch is a check on the executive and legislative branches….it is Government 100 folks…

One has to think the Appellate court, where this is headed, will see this…

Fannie Mae: Did Lamberth Open A Pandora’s Box?
Source: Wikimedia Commons