JOANNA PETRY, et al., APPELLANTS v. JOHN BLOCK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

Looks like someone’s clerk longed for a career as a poet:

In the spirit of the day, OBRA placed administrative agencies on an unusually fast track to implement the mandated changes…. Espying OBRA’s likely passage on the horizon, FNS collected data…. the appellants argue vigorously that the Secretary, through FNS, failed to work with sufficient diligence and dispatch in this task. … After this auspicious beginning, the proposed rule entered FNS’ internal clearance procedure on October 2, 1981. The review of the draft regulation continued in early October, at which point storm clouds of delay loomed large. … These well-laid plans then went awry. … As the calendar fatefully moved toward New Year’s Day, a new draft was completed….

And perhaps the next section was written by a different clerk?

[Appellants] apparently are of the view that a much more extensive explanation of the two studies described in the January 26, 1982 notice was required…. This argument, to put it gently, misinterprets these decisions. … Inapposite as they so manifestly are, Portland Cement and Nova Scotia simply cannot be twisted so as to require ….

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s