The media IS asleep at the wheel on this one, but unless the Constitution has been officially abrogated, this is as useless a passage, in the wishful thinking way of things, as those statements in contracts that companies use stating that they are not responsible even to the extent of gross negligence.
A company can't deny gross negligence contractually. A branch of government can't make themselves immune to judicial review for operational policy / actions... The courts won't 'go after' that piece of silliness and if they agree with the specific actions of their sister branch of government they will ignore the implied slight. However, if someone's underthings get bunched about the specifics, the courts may find themselves in a position to comment. If an individual gets too high and mighty in such a case, judicial contempt is a nasty piece of work. thanks--ml ----- Original Message ----- From: "MarshaV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "MD Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:46 PM Subject: [MD] Section 8 - low quality > > This might be worth a call to your senators and representative. > > "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." > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294. html > > > > > . > . > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... > . > . > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
