SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Zero Hedge reports
[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."
The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.
According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.
Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.
[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?
[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)] would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws--and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers--without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here's how it would work:
Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions--and even billions--of dollars in damages.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:47PM
even if they aren't a "corporate friendly tribunal", arbitrators are not appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate.
I expect they aren't particularly required to abide by common law, which for the most part is determined by court precedent.
Perhaps there is some way to appeal - to another board of arbitrators, but not to a court.
Would the proceedings be a matter of public record? I once threatened to sue a client; he caved immediately, not because he was concerned he would lose, but so that the proceedings would not be public record.
I don't really have the headspace to deal with it right now, but I have standing to sue several different parties, for example I was held involuntarily in a Reno psychiatric hospital for ten days because I told a shrink I intended to go camping in the desert. I like to go camping in the desert, I've been to death valley three different times, also to Baja California way down into BC del Sur. Apparently, in Reno, "camping in the desert" is a local euphemism for committing suicide.
Some of these suits, I could win a lot of money, but that's not really my objective, my objective is to make those jackasses stop doing things like that, so in each case my intention is to sue them for one dollar. I once asked my mother if she knew what it meant, when you sue someone for a dollar: "TO MAKE A POINT!" she shouted.
Strictly speaking that's true, but really the reason is to obtain a jury judgement, the judge's written opinion, as well as to set precedent.
Even if the respondent doesn't appeal, trial opinions can be persuasive in other cases. That is if I make an argument, and the judge agrees with me, then you'll find my argument during your own legal research maybe make that argument yourself.
I once had a felony case dismissed because I was ordered to the state psychiatric hospital for a mental evaluation. That evaluation simply never took place. After a few days, a Jailhouse Lawyer tipped me off to Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 1993 - IIRC - 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The State had but seven days to get me admitted to the hospital.
Just recently, a Federal District Judge issued a permanent injunction against the state of washington, said they had but seven days whenever anyone is ordered to a hospital.
I don't really know for sure, but perhaps my pointing that precedent out to my attorney led to hundreds, maybe thousands of unlawfully jailed defendants getting their cases dismissed.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:52PM
"advice and consent of the senate" - gag me. That bunch of rubber stamps.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:07PM
Suppose the president didn't require anyone's confirmation at all.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:35AM
If you are ever put into a loony bin you need to act calm and get a lawyer. Human rights violations occur when people are locked up without cause.