![]() ![]() They don’t just argue that the federal government must give up enough money to fund the entire Department of Homeland Security for more than two years. Yet the relief they seek is quite radical. ![]() The Collins plaintiffs, in other words, come to the Supreme Court with one foot already in the door because they raise constitutional arguments that much of the Court is very eager to advance. ![]() The plaintiffs also invoke a constitutional theory known as the “ unitary executive,” a theory that was once viewed as quite radical but that now enjoys fanatical support among much of the conservative legal movement - including justices who sit on the Supreme Court. Had the federal government not spent hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up Fannie and Freddie, both companies could have collapsed, and that collapse would have rippled throughout the world economy and potentially triggered a global depression.Īnd yet, the Collins plaintiffs seek to unravel many of the steps - potentially even all of the steps - that the government took to save Fannie and Freddie. It involves a brain-twistingly convoluted array of issues, a complex set of transactions that may have saved the economy from a second Great Depression, and an astonishing amount of money: The plaintiffs argue that the federal government must give up as much as $124 billion.īeginning in 2008, the federal government took extraordinary steps to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two semi-private companies that, combined, were tied up in about half of all mortgages in the United States. Collins) is the stuff that lawyers’ nightmares are made of. ![]() Mnuchin (and a companion case called Mnuchin v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |