Why does bailout bill say "may not be reviewed by any court of law"?

Story here:

Why did they put that in? Any defensible reason?

We’re all accustomed to this Admin’s “unitary executive” arrogance, but baldly and pre-emptively demanding no oversight – and no review by the courts – for executive action is unprecedented so far as I can recall, except WRT treatment of captured “enemy combatants.”

Instapundit has some links to a couple of analysts who say this sort of thing is not unprecedented. Not necessarily a good idea, mind you, just not unprecedented.

The current economic crisis requires four more years of Bush presidency to fix. That’ll be Paulson’s first decision, and it must be unassailable. :wink:

The whole Constitutionality aspect of this leaves me puzzled. IANAL and will guess that Zaring (above) knows what he is talking about more but this feels like it runs smack in the face of separation of powers and checks-and-balances.

At the least it worries me to no end to place that much money and power in the hands of one guy/agency to do as they please with. Certainly they did nothing to slow the race to the bottom that got us here. NOW I am supposed to trust they have it all sorted and know what is best? :rolleyes:

Listening to C-Span radio this morning on my way to work I didn’t hear one caller in favor of giving anyone blank check. The usual partisan bickering was almost non existent.

It seems to me fair or not, that heads have to roll if there’s going to be any support for this. Everyone up for election in November is screwed now too, I think they’re paralyzed; this is a very slippery slope.

The only thing I can think of as that since this would be a selective bailout, they don’t want endless litigation along the lines of “Hey, you bailed out so-and-so, you have to bail us out too”. Which may be a good reason, but I don’t know if there is another legal way to address this.

It is troubling though. The whole point of the operation is to restore confidence in the markets and economy. You’d think that would mean as open and transparent as possible.

Hyperelastic asked the same question in this thread: Constituonality of the Great Bailout, which didn’t get much response.

I took a crack at an answer, but I’d be interested in responses from anyone who is familiar with this area of law:

I can understand the need for the agencies to work through this without landing in court a thousand times and litigating it till we go down the tubes.

However, I find the notion of no oversight on these guys with THAT much money and THAT much power anathema. Someone damn well better be accountable holding that money bag!

For instance, one of the big issues in this whole financial mess is what the fair value of these sub-prime mortgages actually is - that’s one of the factors driving the credit crunch.

I assume that means that the Secretary and his cohort are going to have to come up with some way to value them, to determine how much money to allocate to the different companies. Since there’s no fair market value, that means a fair bit of economic assumptions and guestimates.

As well, a key aspect of a financial crisis is that the markets are looking for stability. That means the bailout only works if it happens quickly and surely, to restore / maintain investor confidence.

But if the Treasury Secretary’s methodology for assessing the value of the mortgages, which is essentially an economic question, not a legal one, is open to challenge in the courts by any of the affected companies, or by any of the creditors of the affected companies, or by any of the shareholders of the companies or their creditors, both the certainty and the quick solution disappear, as the courts could take several years to review the economic analysis and valuation methodology used by the Secretary. That would defeat the purpose of the bailout, since the markets would react in the short-term as if there hadn’t been any bailout.

Hence, a privative clause to give the Secretary considerable discretion, and to ensure that whatever decisions he makes can be implemented right away: time is of the essence.

Paulson says he wants handover money to any financial institution without limitation. He says his decisions are non-reviewable by any court or administrative agency. Why does he need that. ? It stinks. He is an unelected official. He wants more authority than any financial guru ever got.
Odd that this crisis comes 40 days from the election. Is this the last stab at looting the system to make the rich and powerful richer and more powerful. ?
It was said today that they worked on this bill for 6 months. I thought this was an unforeseen crisis. We have to stop this .

Which part of “they’re evil” is unclear to you?

I’m unclear as why the execs of these corporations feel they have the right to dictate the conditions of this bailout. They seem to want $700 billion with no strings attached, what cards do they have to play here?

I expect that they’re part of the ‘culture of corruption’. As such, they’ve probably got the goods on many of theirt friends in Government.

Because time is of the essence. In order for the review to be meaningful, it would need to be done before it is implemented. If that is allowed, it could get tied up in court for a hell of a long time before its either approved or disapproved.

That gives anybody who wants to file a lawsuit the ability to filibuster the entire thing.

Naomi Klein says they were working on the draft for 6 months. I think 40 days from the election is too damn convenient. If something must be done, I want someone other than Paulson. He got rich off the scams and now he wants to save companies who overleveraged.
If congress can be convinced to do it ,it should be for 3 months with a much lower price. Paulson and other looters must not be near it.

Some of these people do not share the vision of America that most of us do. They see themselves as the ruling class and have no problems with a huge gap between rich and poor. They think god has chosen them to rule. They have garnered great power and money in the last 8 years. They want to go out with one more big killing. This is just too damn convenient. Paulson and Bernake assured us all was well for the whole year. Now before the neocons lose their power ,they want to make one more looting.

Hey, if the administration is actively supporting socialism now, might as well stop paying lip service to that whole “limited government” meme as well.

Just a few more bridges left to burn.

Here’s my take on it, from another thread. Yeah, there’s some hyperbole in there but basically I think my analysis is pretty sound, based on what I’ve seen the Bush administration do already.

If they’ve been working on this for months, as they’ve already admitted they have then there is in no way the kind of urgency they’re claiming or they would’ve started working toward this solution earlier. Likewise, with “months” to play with it, this three page marvel is all they could come up with? Please. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd BOTH came up with better plans in a few days. Then again, nobody ever accused the Bush administration of any great intelligence.

I think we all know why they don’t want oversight or recourse for the Americans who’re footing the bill for this piece of dogshit–because they’re preemptively planning on pissing it away as the biggest goddamned crony giveaway party the world has ever seen. Somehow the Republican apologists are strangely silent and equivocal on this–c’mon, where’s the outrage at how us librul types are wrong and that the only way we can all survive is to give sweeping powers to an unelected official that last for years and can’t be changed or amended? Why isn’t anyone yelping about how trustworthy the Bush appointees are and how we should just do what they say because they know best? Isn’t anyone going to come in breathing fire and telling us progressives that we’re un-American and unpatriotic and terriss supporters because we’re looking more than a little askance at this Trojan Horse? Or that we’re stupid because we don’t think it’s a good idea to negtotiate with economic terrorists and extortionists? Anyone?

Missed the window–that should be “Bernie Sanders,” not “Barney Frank.” Moar coffee needed. :smack: