I want to say the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has clearly stated his position that he does not believe judicial review should apply at all, and I understand the position and I respect the reasons he has given. However, I believe no judicial review ultimately means no enforcement. However, the concerns that have been raised have been legitimate concerns. And I think the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] in his amendment has tried to tighten this bill and tighten judicial review, so we hope to avoid even the prospect of some of the problems that might have arisen due to judicial review, as remote in my judgment as they may have been. I think the amendment strengthens the bill, and I support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.
Adam Schiff: “I want to say the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has clearly stated his position that he does not believe…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of judicial review in relation to a bill during House floor debate.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
If NOAA chooses to proceed with its review under these patently misinformed and unreasonable circumstances and decides California should no longer manage a coastal zone program, the State will lose the ability to collaborate with the…
After months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS 'will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant…
We are troubled by the serious allegations that ICE officers attempted to enter private property without a judicial warrant and further threatened to return to the law firm at 3 a.m. to 'break windows' to enter private property.
We refuse to tolerate these efforts to target law firms and organizations based solely on who their clients may be or their practice areas.





