With this bill, the opponents look for ghosts and trouble everywhere, they find it everywhere, and they apply to it the wrong solutions. Mr. President, this language is clear, and I do not care who says otherwise. Show me where that is unclear. As I say to my friend from Michigan, his interpretation of his judicial review provision is exactly what ours says. His gives with the left hand a procedural review, takes it away with the right hand in ambiguous language, and interprets that with court cases which he says are clear. But we obviate the problem for any of that by simply saying there is no procedural review. He has a procedural review in his proposal. We do not have that in ours. That is why ours is preferable. It is clearer. It is free of all ambiguity. I yield the floor.
David Cay Johnston: “With this bill, the opponents look for ghosts and trouble everywhere, they find it everywhere, and they apply to it the…”
Editor's note · Context
Debating the clarity and effectiveness of a bill's language regarding procedural review.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
If I may answer that, because the Senator is a very thoughtful Senator and it is a fair question. First of all, let me say, on the issue of reprocessing, you would need a central facility for reprocessing anyway. So that does not solve the…
This is sort of a version 2 of the Wellstone amendment, in that it seeks to take the rights of utilities and, secondarily, the rights of ratepayers of utilities, and abolish those by legislative fiat--which simply cannot be done. The…
Donald has a long history of, you know, cheating, lying under oath, presenting false documents.
And the Senator would not disagree you can't take away that right legislatively, can you?





