No one wants the courts to run this thing. But some of us do believe in the rule of law.

Does the Constitution count as the rule of law? One of the few checks and balances that the political branches have from judicial overreach is to define the cases that the courts can hear.

There may be some reasonable limits to put to prevent some kinds of litigation, but blanket immunity is just crazy. To take an admittedly extreme example, if Paulson or his successor decided to take a billion and wire it to his Swiss bank account, don't you think that should be reviewable?

Yes, it would be reviewable. The only things that are not reviewable are "[d]ecisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act." So, if someone filed a lawsuit to stop Paulson from taking the money or to require him to give it back, the courts would be faced with an initial question, were the wire transfers authorized by Congress? If the answer is no, then jurisdiction has not been stripped and the courts could review the case to determine whether Paulson exceeded his authority and what to do about it. If the answer is yes, then what is there to review anyway? If Congress authorized Paulson to give himself a billion dollars, what judicial issue is raised?

[W]hy would anybody want the courts to decide the appropriate response to a financial crisis?

No one wants the courts to run this thing. But some of us do believe in the rule of law. There may be some reasonable limits to put to prevent some kinds of litigation, but blanket immunity is just crazy. To take an admittedly extreme example, if Paulson or his successor decided to take a billion and wire it to his Swiss bank account, don't you think that should be reviewable?

I'd like to see a constitutional lawyer weigh in on this, at least as far as the Supreme Court goes.

You can google the wikipedia entry for "jurisdiction stripping." Congress has the power to create federal courts and define the cases they hear.

Hmm. What changed? You got different marching orders?

The Christopher Dodd Plan, not so much

I can see why you feel that way. After all, Dodd thinks the constitution actually matters...

may not be reviewed by any court of law

I'd like to see a constitutional lawyer weigh in on this, at least as far as the Supreme Court goes. Sounds like they don't want a replay of FDR's problems with SCOTUS,

This isn't like the White House implementing a policy via various agencies, it is, unless I'm mistaken, something they are asking Congress to pass. As such it would be a law. A bit different than you are making it out to be.

(C) why would anybody want the courts to decide the appropriate response to a financial crisis?

Accountability is a good thing. If there is something shady going on I'd like at least some entity to have powers of review.

(B) As some have noticed, the political branches asked the court to butt out of the detainee compromise legislation and the courts ignored the mandate when they felt higher Constitutional demands beckoned; and

(C) why would anybody want the courts to decide the appropriate response to a financial crisis?