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
Then how in the world can the Senator say they are transferring the duty of disposing of nuclear waste from the Federal Government or the taxpayers and giving that to the utilities?
This is absolutely devastating for Donald Trump, and unless a Court of Appeals overturns this, which I would think highly unlikely, we're going to see his properties seized, dissolved, and the creditors paid off, and he will be permanently…
Donald has a long history of, you know, cheating, lying under oath, presenting false documents.
Nuclear waste traveling the country is, first of all, solid in form. It is sealed in a cask that, as I say, if you get a direct hit by something 30 times more powerful than an antitank weapon, what do you get? You get a third of an ounce…





