Court oversight neglected

September 30, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Hey, there. I’ve found myself in a bit of a pickle financially and need around $700 billion. Can you lend it to me without me telling you what I need it for? Thanks. But by the way, if I don’t repay it, or I do things with the money that you don’t like, you have no recourse to get your money back.

What? You don’t want to lend me the money anymore? But I really need it, and if you don’t give it to me, bad things will happen. You should just overlook the fact that my decisions in what to do with the money can’t be reviewed by the courts.

That’s pretty much how I interpret what’s going on with the bailout package proposed by President Bush’s administration. They’ve focused so much on the doom and gloom that will happen if this package isn’t passed by Congress that the general public may not know about Section 8 of the legislative proposal for the treasury to be able to buy mortgage-related assets.

Section 8 of the original resolution states: “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.”

But Congress must not have liked that lack of oversight because the unlimited powers for the secretary of the treasury outlined in the original resolution were changed. The amended resolution includes Section 119 – Judicial Review and related matters. Under this section, actions by the treasury secretary under this act can be held to be unlawful and set aside if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law.

Wasn’t a lack of review and oversight what got the U.S. into the financial mess it’s in now? The president, his administration, and Congress need to slow down and examine this package thoroughly because if it passes, it needs to be the best possible scenario for Wall Street, financial institutions, and taxpayers, or else we could just end up in this mess again in a few years.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT