to policy analysis. See Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S.Ct. 1267; Irving, 162 F.3d at 167. Shansky’s effort to make the requisite showing emphasizes the actual decisionmak-ing that went into the 1970 retrofitting of the Trading Post. She insists that nobody in the Park Service perceived that the Northern Exit posed a danger and, thus, no one thought about installing handrails or warning signs. Shansky renewed this emphasis at oral argument, repeatedly asserting that the discretionary function defense should topple solely because Park Service officials “failed to consider” the safety issues of which she complains. Although Shansky marshals some evidence to support her claim—the Park Service apparently did not explicitly consider the safety , 943 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). In fine, an inquiring
holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision  recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver holding that the constitution can limit the discretion of federal officials such that the ftcas discretionary function exception will not apply holding federal tort claims act discretionary function exception does not apply if prison personnel violate a mandatory regulation