Archive for October, 2012
Congressional Letter to OIRA: Unified Agenda, Report on Benefits and Costs of Regulation, Midnight Rules
Editor’s Note: A letter to OIRA from the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and two sub-committee chairs is attached here. The letter requests a staff briefing by November 2nd on OIRA’s delays in releasing the Spring 2012 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations as well as whether OIRA has provided agencies with any guidance on “midnight rulemaking.”
From: The Virginian-Pilot
By Susan E. Dudley
Should government regulators think through the likely effects of proposed regulations to see whether they’ll do more good than harm?
Every president for more than 30 years has thought so and has required executive branch agencies to analyze regulatory effects before imposing new requirements and to send them for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.
However, because of their historical designation as “independent,” some agencies have been exempt from these common-sense requirements, making their regulations less accountable and well-reasoned than others.
From: New York Law Journal
By Jenna Greene and Matthew Huisman
To law firms, a presidential election means more than debates and conventions and bumper stickers. It’s also a chance to acquire talent.
The revolving door between law firms and the federal government is always spinning, but every four years it speeds up as top lawyers in politically appointed posts are either forced out by a change in administration or burn out after stints in public service.
From: The New York Review of Books
Cass R. Sunstein
The Hidden Stakes of the Election
It is not exactly news that there are big differences between judges chosen by Republican presidents and judges chosen by Democratic presidents. Of course the most visible differences involve constitutional law. For all the high-flown talk about the Constitution’s original meaning, the role of precedent, and the virtues and vices of the “living Constitution” (the idea that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time), the fact is that the views of Republican and Democratic appointees on questions of constitutional law tend to overlap with the views of Republican and Democratic presidents on questions of public policy.
From: The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University
Rethinking Regulation at KIE and Duke Law School are hosting Sally Katzen and John Graham, administrators of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton and Bush administrations, respectively. They will discuss the evolving challenge of regulatory policy making over the last quarter century. Event flyer available for download.
October 24, 5:00-6:30 pm Duke Law School Room 4042 Reception to follow