Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Ted Olson: Prop 8 Challenge Could Have Global Impact | Main | The Morning Wrap »

April 08, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20133ec8cb38b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deadline in Cobell Case Extended for Third Time:

Comments

Harold Haukaas

Robertson said that this is a "win win" situation. With this type of logic, he would also conclude that buying Manhattan from the Indians of that day for what $24 worth of beads was a "win win" for both parties. If any holds to his conclusion, even Cobell herself, you will need you head to be examined. H Hauk

Melvin

You would think that Congress would want to get this done now and not later, it just shows how ignorant and bold this Congress is. It is our money and yet they are acting like it is theirs!! good grief!

Congress is only making themselves look ignorant.

PBS

The judgment fund doesn't apply because this case was brought in district court not the CFC. There is no authority for the district court to award the settlement amount. Hence, congressional approval is required.

REM

For those of us not well versed in how the judgment fund operates, etc., why does this settlement have to approved by Congress? Is it because of the size? How big does a settlement have to be before Congress has to approve it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements