"Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Caveat emptor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Not quite. Today any time a law or act is passed it can be tied up for years in the courts. Putting that language in the law raises the hurdle considerably on the kind of challenges that can be made. Otherwise if I was with one company I could sue if I disagreed with the actions being taken. That would become a primary tactic, if I don't get my way I will sue and tie it all up.
You still sue, but the hurdle is much much higher. It would have to be for a clear violation of the law or that the law itself was not legal, instead of minor interpretations on how the law was implemented.
Yeah, because history is just full of examples of power given back once the crisis is over.
There's Cincinatus, and George Washington, and.....and.....uh, I'm sure in the last 2000 years there was someone.
Let see....maybe,....no,
?
Duncan,
That has become a pretty standard feature in bills being passed by Congress that require any sense of urgency. I can think of several that have the same clause. THe building of the border fence is one of them.
The key issue is if it is not included anybody opposed can derail the program by filing suit as a delaying tactic.
As mentioned above the threat of a suit can become a negotiating technique.
McCain wants to dodge the debate this Friday.
Here's a prediction. He'll propose that the V.P. be replaced by an fill in Pres. debate.
Palin must be an even bigger disaster than we know they're trying so hard to hide her.
If I was the moderator of this Friday's debate, I'd say something like:
"O.K. you both came here ready to talk about foreign policy. But I'm doing a change up.
"I'm going to change this to economics, and because you haven't been crammed with sound bites maybe we'll get some honest answers. Since you both are equally blindsided, this is fair."
"Next debate -- foreign policy."
I do believe that his comment was that both should focus on getting the bill through, because the consequences of not having prompt passage would be extremely damaging to the economy. That the debate should be rescheduled if the Bill is not passed by the weekend.
"Palin must be an even bigger disaster than we know they're trying so hard to hide her."
Your letting your bias' show thru, so I'll let mine show.
She can't be as bad as the stumbling, stuttering, teleprompter-challenged, Marxist-trained (Alinsky)Obummer.
And besides, she's easier on the eyes and doesn't look like Dumbo.
I suspect that they will wait until the VP Debates and then will open up access afterwards. They have put in some unfriendly one on one interviews and she has done well.
Considering her impact during the presentation at the convention, if I was running the campaign, I would limit her exposure to maximize her impact at the VP debates against Biden and then open up access afterwards. Will have far more impact that way. Particularly if she does as well as I expect in that debate.
>>>They have put in some unfriendly one on one interviews and she has done well.
We disagree there. I didn't feel that the Gibson interview was all that unfriendly (did you see Obama on O'Riley?), nor did I feel that she did well in it.
The problem with hiding her is that we can't form better opinions. Elections should be based on as much information as we can get into our brains. Keeping information from us does not look good - and they know that, so it makes me feel that what they are hiding is REALLY not good.
The next president is extremely important. This administration has screwed things up to the point where the next one is going to have a very difficult time. The elections need to be based on the issues, not crap. The debates are an important part of that.
All the debates should happen, on schedule. We don't have a lot of time left before the election and the US citizens desperately need to hear the candidates speak on issues.
I am incredibly disheartened today. The hope I felt early in the week with the voters mobilizing and seeming to make a difference in stopping this debacle of a bailout bill has evaporated. Congress has made some small changes but will push ahead and reward the financial system for failure.
700 billion dollars. I can't help but think of how that money could be invested in our country, provide jobs, infrastructure rebuilding, a new energy system. The list is tremendous. Instead what we will do is make taxpayer money available to provide more debt.
Our history will note this action as a failure and a lost opportunity. May we all pull together and help each other in the coming challenges.
michael,
The end cost will be far less than 700 billion. It is basically money being used to purchase assets, which will then be sold at a later date. The estimates on the true cost range from a substantial profit (1 trillion according to one Wall Street Journal article to a worst case cost, if things go really really south with the economy of 250 billion from Moodey's Zandi)
My own expectation is that we will end at the neutral to slightly positive level. As long as they do not play too many games with it. My biggest concern is that they will add 700 billion to the national debt and then when they sell the paper move the funds into the general fund, instead of paying the incurred debt off first.
Post a Comment