You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.

Latest

Greatest

Lobby

Journals

Options

Help

Reply #19: Judicial oversight is nice, but meaningless when Paulson [View All]

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Captiosus

(711 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-28-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #3

19. Judicial oversight is nice, but meaningless when Paulson

can determine what he thinks is "applicable" to disclose.

See Section 114(b). The ultimate authority on what to disclose from each deal isn't transparent at all and lays solely on the Secretary of the Treasury. So Judicial review only gets to see part of the picture, not the full one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.