David Cay Johnston: “Look. That is precisely the same. That is an additional interpretation. ``Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of…”

“Look. That is precisely the same. That is an additional interpretation. ``Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion.'' That is the standard that we bring forward. We leave out ``otherwise not in accordance with law'' because we wanted to leave out the procedural review. That is one of the most litigated and judicially interpreted phrases in all of the annals of judicial review. And it is the same precise and exact standard which you claim is provided in your review. You see the only difference between yours and ours, we both use ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion.'' But you have ``observance of procedure required by law.'' But you claim that either that is meaningless or that your language takes it away. So I say it adds nothing to it other than ambiguous.”