Cheney doesn't have to disclose Energy papers. according to SC

[Auntie Bush]

[Cambist]

1. Just saw this on CNN

http://us.cnn.com/

[Flubadubya]

2. Ruling: 7-2 vote for Cheney.

Ginsberg and Souter only dissenting votes.

This is not a surprise, sadly. :grr: :mad:

[MallRat]

45. Ginsberg and Souter? WTF Stevens?

I was absolutely certain this was going to be 5-4... but 7-2?

:wtf:

[happyslug]

85. Here is the Decision:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24june20041201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-475.pdf

And the Decsion is NOT 7-2 but 5-2-2,

Scalia and Thomas objected to Part III of the opinion which related to the balance between deferring to the President AND the need to get information from the President. I will have to read the decsion more carfully to see the actual dispute, but its sounds like the Supreme Court wants the Court of Appeals to weigh these two more equally than the Court did.

[happyslug]

89. A truly weird decision

What I mean by Weird is the Decision was to send back the case to the Court of Appeals to re-weigh the evidence that court has already said was insufficient to support an Order STOPPING THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER.

The opinion was written by "KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which SCALIA, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.". Thus is a 5-2-2 Decision not a 7-2 Decision.

The Final Decision was agreed to by Kennedy, Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor and Breyer. The opinion was in Four Parts (which follows). They remand the Case to the Court of Appeals to weigh the Rights of the Litigates to Obtain needed Evidence in their Case against the Government AND the Right of the Executive Branch to minimal interference by the Judicial Branch of the Government.

Scalia and Thomas agreed to Parts I, II, III and IV but rejects the Remand Order of Part V of the Majority Decision. This Rejection was based that their belief that the Discovery Order Signed by the Trial Judge was to broad and thus excessively interferes with the Workings of the Executive Branch.

Ginsburg and Souter dissented on the ground that the Government at the Trial Court Level had NEVER made a request to Restrict the Discovery Request on the Ground of Executive Privilege, instead claimed an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL DISCOVERY REQUESTS. Ginsburg and Souter rejects this absolute Right of Executive Privilege and points out the best place to restrict the Request is at the Trial Level and the Government has NEVER made such a request. Since the Government has NEVER given the trial Judge the opportunity to restrict the Discovery, the requirements for a Writ of Mandamus have never been meet and the decision of the Court of Appeals should have been upheld.

The Opinion by Parts:

Part 1 - This is the history of the Case from District Court through the Court of Appeals. It also defines the following:

FACA means the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA or Act), 5 U. S. C. App. §2, p. 1.]

NEPDG is the National Energy Policy Development Group or Cheney's Energy Task force.

APA is the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §706.

Please note that the Trial Court did order Discovery (the Right of a Party to get information and Evidence from the opposing side in most litigation). It was this Discovery Request that the Government objected to. As part of that objection the Government requested a "Writ of Mandamus" from the Court of Appeals to the Trial Court, ordering the Trial Court to STOP ALL AND ANY DISCOVERY REQUEST by the Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals Rejected the Request for the Writ of Mandamus and the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Part II - This is the issue that the Government request for the Writ of Mandamus was filed to late. The Supreme Court basically said that question is best determined by the Court of Appeals when the Court of Appeals decides on the Writ of Mandamus based on the Directions given in the subsequent Parts of the Supreme Court opinion.

Part III - "We now come to the central issue in the case “whether the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude it “ha no authority to exercise the extraordinary remedy of mandamus,” 334 F. 3d, at 1105, on the ground that the Government could protect its rights by asserting executive privilege in the District Court." i.e. the Government should have made motions to restrict discovery with the Trial court based on Executive Privilege instead of filing the Writ of Mandamus?

The Court than goes on a defines the conditions when a appellant court can issue a “Writ of Mandamus”:

First, “the party seeking issuance of the writ have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires....a condition designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process,”

Second, the petitioner must satisfy “‘the burden of showing that right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’”

Third, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

The Court than goes on that Given the nature of the Executive Branch any Judicial Act against the Executive must take into consideration the nature of the Presidency and to balance between the concept that the Actions against the President is NOT THE SAME AS AN ACTION AGAINST A REGULAR CITIZEN but also the concept that the President is NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

It than distinguished the Court Order on Richard Nixon to turn over his Audio tapes as involving a CRIMINAL investigation as opposed to the Strictly Civil Action against Cheney and that in the Nixon Tape case there was no other way to obtain the needed evidence in a Criminal Investigation.

The Court also recognized that the Executive Branch is a highly visible target for Judicial Action, and as such the Judicial Branch MUST restrict actions against the Presidency to minimize wasting the Executive’s time and money defending itself against questionable litigation (but also to preserve the right of people to file legitimate litigation).

PART IV - Here the Court looks into the Opinion of the Appeal Court and Rejects the Appeals Court’s Decision that any request for a Writ of Mandamus by the Government was premature because the Government had not yet made a claim of Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court REJECTS the Decision of the of the Court of Appeals that the Executive Branch must first claim Executive Privilege before the Court will recognize the Privilege . The Court ruled instead that the COURT MUST RECOGNIZE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EVEN IF IT IS NOT CLAIMED and RESTRICT ALL CLAIMS OF DISCOVERY TO REFLECT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. The Court of Appeals has to balance between the rights of the Plaintiffs to justice with the Rights of the Executive Branch to minimize

Part V - THE ACTUAL DECISION - The Court Remains the Case to the Court of Appeals to weigh the Rights of the Plaintiffs with the Right of the Executive Privilege and to find a balance between the two.

[bluedog]

3. thats bull crap!!!!!

A corrupt administration......murders.proven liars.....and they still are not held accountable for any damn thing they do......this has got to stop.......I'd love to storm the WH and pull their asses out....

[reprobate]

13. I had that dream a few nights ago.

I saw the white house surrounded by two million protesters. I saw the protesters drag the entire administration from the building, carrying them towards a big pot of tar. I woke up before I saw the use of the feathers.

A very pleasant dream.

[tom_paine]

57. Yes.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies...

[Misunderestimator]

4. Just saw it too... unfreakingbelievable!

:wtf: I ask, How can he get away with this... but we all know the answer... f'ing Supreme Court!

[asjr]

28. Scalia really got his ducks in a row!

[MoonRiver]

36. Lol! At first I read ducks as 'dicks'

I think it fits just fine though! :evilgrin:

[Mistress Quickly]

5. ...

:puke: :mad: :silly: :wtf: :grr: :thumbsdown: :nuke:

[funkybutt]

6. BASED ON WHAT!!??

this is ridiculous...i'm so pissed!!!

[ewagner]

7. Can't believe this

I am surprised not only with the outcome but also the 7-2 vote!

This is outrageous! :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[cybildisobedience]

8. said it before.....

and saying it again....
The 5-4 ruling by the S.C. that put Bush in office was even worse than 9-11 for one basic reason:
We are now a lawless society.
This crew can get away with anything they want, and the highest court in the land will back them up.
Think about how sad this is -- they can probe into every crevice of our personal lives, but we can't know even the most basic details of how public policy was formulated. And not even what was said, but who attended!
Sad, sad day.....

[GainesT1958]

9. Haven't heard what the vote was, but...

Sounds to me like the "Scalia Five" is hard at work again!:mad:

DAMN!:grr:

I guess we should be thankful no one has yet challenged the Freedom of Information Act, huh?:argh:

B-)

[Auntie Bush]

10. More details

Supreme court voted 2 to 7 that the Energy report can remain secret in or to preserve privacy of Executive branch. :puke: Of course Scalia voted to keep them secret. This Republican SC has to go. We must put Kerry in office! :grr:

[asjr]

11. When the SC is as corrupt as the WH

and secrecy is the norm we are indeed falling into a dictatorship. This just blows my mind. Aiding and abetting this WH has got to stop.

[meegbear]

12. But I have to give my name ...

WTF!?!

[warrior1]

17. so when

the bush cabal is indicted can we see them then?

[Kadie]

14. 7-2 vote?

5-4 wouldn't have shocked me but 7-2? Unbelievable.

[shoelace414]

15. So

So a republican president can keep who they met with private, but you can sue in civil court a democratic president.

[Skittles]

21. yup - only Democrats are held accountable

nt

[UpInArms]

16. the Unified Supremely Criminal Court

strikes yet another body blow to democracy.

:argh:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. SC punted again.

They returned it to a lower court to determine whether the law used in the case (an FOIA type law) was applicable. Merely a punt. But it certainly means that the records won't be released before the election.

[shoelace414]

20. all they have to do

is delay until after Bush's last election.

this does it.

[Skittles]

19. those papers are the least of his problems now

evil asshole

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. It may not be all bad.

Even though this ruling returns it to a lower court, the reporting on the ruling will remind folks what a secretive bunch of bastards these guys are. Of limited value, but ya takes what you can gets.

[shoelace414]

22. from CNN

Justices said 7-2 that a lower court should consider whether a federal open government law could be used to get documents of the task force.

The decision extends the legal fight over the information. Justices could have allowed a judge to immediately move ahead with ordering the release of the papers.

[hang a left]

46. Well then this isn't as bad as I thought.

I would like to read the ruling. It seems from what I am reading here, the SC just wants not to be the one that decides. This is not so bad. Guys it could be alot worse. They are just staying out of election politics.

When is the Guantanamo ruling coming? These are the really scarey rulings.

[TahitiNut]

23. RICO - the Federal Government is now a Corrupt Organization

The Bush/Cheney copResidency is now officially an Imperial regime, able to operate without disclosure to the People.

The "American Republic" is dead.

[tom_paine]

59. Yes.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies..

[Flubadubya]

24. This country is toast...

I hate to say it, but I sadly and sorrily believe it is so. Just makes me want punch something, and then cry. :cry:

[shoelace414]

25. I wonder if

this is a "payback" before the fact for when SCOTUS rules against them in the gitmo case.

[Spazito]

30. That was my thought too...

there are indicators that the USSC will rule against all three cases currently before them re Gitmo, etc.

This is not an outright ruling in favor of the administration, it is an interim decision that delays a final decision.

[shoelace414]

31. the admin doesn't care

after the next election, because Bush will never run for election agian.

[Spazito]

37. LOL, you are presupposing bush will win, I doubt he will....

given his plunging poll numbers. Once the democrats are in office, those documents will become public.

[AndyTiedye]

82. Or The Supremes Will Install Him Again Regardless of the Vote

like they did in 2000. They seem to be telegraphing such an intent.

[shoelace414]

26. Did the supremes

rule on Hillarys health task force?

[cspiguy]

40. SHE WAS NOT ELECTED AT THE TIME

did not apply

[Justitia]

27. Banana Republic complete w/a Kangaroo Court!!!!

What the hell is our country descending to????
I knew this crap would start happening once this same corrupt court installed Bush, but not even I knew how bad it would be.

We are sliding into total tyranny, complete with the kiss of death from these "justices".

What is becoming of our country, that the highest court in the land exists solely to both create the executive, and then provide cover for the executive branch??

Welcome to your dictatorship.

[bluedog]

34. I posted this on the yahoo board.......

The pigs were bragging about how the Democrats were beat again by their decision....


When a person has to give their name to a police officer.and the government has its nose in all our affairs even the bedroom.these asses get away with lying.murder...secret meetings.and the SC sticks with them?? Welcome to the new dictorship of America...and just TRY prove me wrong!!!!!!

[shoelace414]

38. the bulk of judgements

Seem to go against the ones that aren't in power.

more power = more judgements from supremes

[liveoaktx]

32. Wait! Wait! They turned it BACK to the lower court=NOT DEAD YET

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/scotus.cheney.taskforce.ap/index.html
The Supreme Court refused Thursday to order the Bush administration to make public secret details of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, but kept the case alive by sending it back to a lower court.

Justices said 7-2 that a lower court should consider whether a federal open government law could be used to get documents of the task force.

The decision extends the legal fight over the information. Justices could have allowed a judge to immediately move ahead with ordering the release of the papers.

[shoelace414]

33. but it does mean

it won't come out before the election.

[Misunderestimator]

35. Well, at least it's something... but it'll drag till after the election...

[liveoaktx]

39. Except that it will add to the Jinx Cloud *still* hanging over his head

along with the Halliburton scandals.

Strikes me that the SCOTUS have decided to be wussies about cases lately (like the God/Pledge dismissed on a bogus technicality) and now this, where they don't want to stand up, but have the lower court do the dirty work.

[Auntie Bush]

Jeff Tobin on CNN said the case was closed. Done! Finished!

[Auntie Bush]

44. Jeff Tobin on CNN said the case was closed. Done! Finished!

[Flubadubya]

60. Thanks Anti Bush... I was about to make the same point...

And what exactly does this mean? Is Tubin lying or not know what he's talking about.. or... is this just wishful thinking that the case will go back to the lower court and that it is not done?

Can someone knowledgeable answer this? This seems to be quite a critical contradiction.

[hang a left]

74. What I think he means is that THIS case is being sent back.

They will have to refile to get in front of SC again.

[Flubadubya]

75. So, even if it goes back to the SC...

a decision would be rendered (again) by the lower court, Cheney would then appeal to the SC again (if they ruled against him), and there it would be before the SC to rule upon once more.

Let me guess what their second decision would be. LOL!!!

[Richardo]

86. Judge Sullivan in US District Court - Reagan Appointee...

...but his order for Cheney to release documents too broad? Interesting!

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sullivan-bio.html

[reprobate]

41. To quote from the Declaration of Independence.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Sounds like an idea to me.

[Occulus]

48. I'll see your quote

and raise you another:

"...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[leesa]

42. These papers are the key to everything

They will describe how we went to war with Afghanistan to push the pipeline deal through for Ken Lay. They will describe the plan to rob California and other states. They will describe the plan to invade Iraq and steal her oil. It will all be exposed. I think they will come out one way or another. Perhaps when they do, we can throw out some of the Supremes.

[benfranklin1776]

84. I have the feeling you are quite right.

Someone on the inside needs to do the patriotic thing that Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers and leak them wholesale.

[Hornito]

43. Our democracy died on Dec. 12, 2000, so this ruling is no

surprise. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches of our government, are as corrupt as any in the world. Only a complete cleansing will return democracy to the people of this nation. What is needed, is for *millions* to march on this White House, the Congress, and the SCOTUS. It will take more than voting on Nov. 2 to put the fear into these criminals.

I am sure the Supreme Court was very aware, that the information contained in the files they ruled on today, would have quickly brought down the Bush regime. With information showing the conspiracy by and between Ken Lay and Enron, along with the other giant energy corporations, and the government, and with the plans they conjured up and previewed for an Iraq invasion, public release would have been explosive.

Did SCOTUS act to preserve the Bush regime?, and/or, out of fear of a complete collapse of the government? Perhaps when some of these fascists write their memoirs, we'll know.

[Auntie Bush]

53. "Perhaps when some of these fascists write their memoirs,

we'll know". Yeah maybe, but that might be too late! :scared:

There is something good about this...It should excite our base and get everyone out there working for Kerry instead of staying home and grousing or just voting. We need everyone to WORK for Kerry and DONATE, donate, donate! And don't vote for Nader...we don't want to just win...we want a huge MANDATE. No matter who the VP is...even if you dislike him)...vote for Kerry. I am really energized now.

Before this decision I did not plan to work on the Kerry campaign if he didn't choose my VP candidate...no enthusiasm...but NOW I'll work my ass off! I'm sure others will feel the same way.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

47. OK...show of hands...who honestly thought that he would have to?

Said it before, said it again...Rumsfeld may become a sacrificial lamb at some point, Ashcroft may take it up the keister, but Bush and Cheney are going to walk away from this administration without...a...frigging...SCRATCH. A truckload of money in the bank, a fat, lazy retirement...and NO punishment, NO accountability, NADA, ZIP.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

THIS IS NOT OVER!! IT WAS KICKED BACK TO A LOWER COURT!

It's NOT as bad as it seems on it's face...It's not over yet, though it may be delayed until after the election...

[MallRat]

51. Even if the lower court rules in our favor, Bush can run the clock out.

If the Appeals Court orders release of the documents, the Administration can re-appeal to the SCOTUS again.

By then, November 2nd will have come and gone.

-MR

[MallRat]

49. SCOTUS chooses to punt AGAIN.

Now I see. It wasn't a 7-2 decision against release of the documents. It was a 7-2 decision to wuss out and let a lower court decide.

:eyes:

-MR

[Beetwasher]

52. If I'm Not Mistaken Though

It was Cheney who went to the SC because a lower court ruled against him...But I do think you're right in that it won't be decided before the election...It may not be necessary at this point though even if it was decided before the election, there's so much other "meat" out there, that this story would be like pissing in the ocean anyway and have limited impact...

[Flubadubya]

61. Only problem now seems to be the media...

As mentioned above, Jeffry Tubin (on CNN) declared that the SC had ruled in Cheney's favor and that the case was closed. He said that it was still a matter of debate in the political arena, of course, but that it was a done deal legally.

Just what does that mean? He said absolutely NOTHING about it going back to a lower court for further deliberation. This has got to be too weird. Is now the media being complicit in trying to dupe the public into believing that Cheney "won"? I just want to know :wtf: is really going on!

[Loki]

50. Goodbye America

it was nice knowing ya. We could never be conquered by forces from abroad, but died from the corruption within. The Supreme Court has now become irrelevant.

[Geo55]

54. Roman Empire scenario

Over extention an' rot from within.

[bluedog]

55. A Rant I Found

Well written..........A posters view.
Reply Post


TIME FOR AMERICA TO DECLARE WAR ON BUSH


Let's hope that the U.N. Security Council and all the freedom nations of the world pass a resolution condemning Bush's occupation of the White House and subsequent illegal war in Iraq.

The U.S. will veto of course, but China, Russia, France et all should vow that they have the right to act unilaterally and will assemble a coalition of the willing of their own with which to invade Washington.

Bush should be given 48 hours to find safe haven somewhere in South America and let the bombing begin.

These jokers who have stolen power couldn't assemble a cheese sandwich without spreading around billions of dollars in no-bid contracts and they expect us to believe that they can effectively and honestly govern?

Billions upon Billions of dollars that could be used to make the U.S. a really great nation (health care, education, jobs, etc) are being frittered away in some two-bit schoolyard pissing contest of a war.

"Well, maybe there were no weapons after all," will soon be their refrain, but at least we liberated an oppressed people and toppled a brutal dictator.

Guess what kiddies, there are oppressed peoples living in brutal regimes all over the globe (most of Africa last time I checked) but, mysteriously, since there is no oil that needs "rescuing" all we do is send them a sympathy card, a few bags of rice and Jimmy Carter.

People say that fanatics have "hijacked Islam."

Well, news flash kids, old Georgie boy and his millionaire thugs have hijacked democracy simply so they can pad their bank accounts a little more.

Oh God does he make me sick.

The founding fathers would take up arms against the Bush regime in a minute if they were with us today.

And before you flame me and call me a "commie" or a "liberal prick" or whatever well-thought-out response you can muster let me tell you this:

I am a patriot and rather conservative.

One of the tenets of conservatism is not allowing special interests to take over a government.

Well, the folks in charge today are nothing more than a cadre of the worst kind of special interest pirates.

They pay for their treasure with American blood.

They must be stopped.

Regime change begins at home.

God Bless America and may God soon deliver it from the clutches of the criminals in charge now.

[Occulus]

58. Everyone, TAKE A BREATH.

This may not be as bad as we're all envisioning.

Stop and think for a moment: The SCOTUS surely knows more than we do about the ETF papers. Now, I'm not saying that to excuse their decision, but rather to explain it.

Perhaps the infomation contained within those documents really are explosive- so very explosive that the SCOTUS reasonably foresaw violence and civil unrest were the information to be disclosed to the public right now.

Maybe, just maybe, the SCOTUS is taking a "wait and see" attitude re "F-9/11". Maybe they're thinking that if the heat is turned to the right temperature, Bush* and his cabal will be cooked in a much more civilized manner.

Consider for a moment that the SCOTUS did not dismiss the case outright, as it could have done. That it failed to rule itself on such a matter, instead punting it back to a lower court, leaves open the possibility that this issue will be resolved after Bush* and his cabal are gone; this would bolster the case against him after he leaves.

Please, people, keep in mind that our elected officials and our courts are put in place to first and foremost protect the Constitution and the people. If that protection includes keeping certain documents out of public view that would only inflame the passions on both sides of the political spectrum, so be it. For now.

This isn't as obvious a slap in the face to the people and accountability as it might seem. If those documents really are as damaging as we all believe they are, hell, it could well spark a civil war- something nobody wants. Far better to let a film spark it in a quieter, more controlled, legal manner. By all accounts, there's an awful lot of evidence contained in F-9/11- likely enough to sink Bush's* election chances.

Does anyone here really think Bush* will last past the election? Does anyone here really think the next admin would allow those documents to remain secret? Does anyone here realize SCOTUS could reverse itself on this decision after the election- after Bush* has lost?

On one hand, they're all corrupt. On the other, they're making a very devious ploy, taking the chance that releasing these documents would cause everything to fall apart in an uncontrolled manner. Which is true has yet to be settled; that issue isn't yet closed.

Some foods you have to boil; others, you can't, or it'll destroy the meal. I'd rather have a controlled simmer until cooked than a rolling boil that gets my stove all wet on this one.

[Flubadubya]

64. Horse Hockey!!!

You give SCOTUS far too much credit. They lost all creds the day they installed this monstrous regime. I don't think they are at all out to "LIHOP" the Bush cabal. They are just out to protect their previous nefarious handiwork, i.e. Gore v. Bush! :grr:

[Occulus]

66. I'm not so sure.

That was a 5-4 decision, a great deal closer than this one. And they could have ismissed the case if they were really trying to protect the cabal. Further, they gave grounds to reexamine the case on other merits; I don't think judges do so capriciously. IOW, they feel that the case has merit, but wasn't proven with the arguments given. Instead of pulling the plug, they prescribed a new treatment, as it were. They didn't need to do that.

[Flubadubya]

71. Perhaps you're right....

Personally, I don't really have a proper perspective for surmizing what may have been their rationale in this decision, but I would tend to believe it was more of a "cop-out" on their part than it was a purposeful withholding of judgment in hopes that there may be an alternative outcome stemming from public opinion raised by general malcontent with the administration. Even less likely, I believe, would they "leave it to a movie" to render "justice" that they have deferred. :shrug:

[Beetwasher]

79. A Cop Out For Sure

But considering the heat they've been taking for poking their noses into politics, it may have been a wise move to kick it back down to a lower court. And remember, the lower court already ruled against Cheney. Cheney should have an uphill battle in the lower court to get them to change their previous ruling.

[olddem43]

68. Thanks for an excellent and thoughtful post - n/t

[Beetwasher]

78. Also Remember: The Lower Court ALREADY RULED AGAINST CHENEY!

That's why he took it to the Supremes...It might not happen before the election, but this ruling is not as bad as it seems on it's face. It's only a TEMPORARY win for Cheney in that he doesn't have to reveal the docs right now.

[jus_the_facts]

81. BUT..this time...they could get a repuke FED judge who'll let him slide...

....just as easily as the SCOTUS has...must be what they've concluded is to happen.....this makes me almost wish for a 'pelican brief' o'sorts...the lyin'...cheatin' bastages! :evilfrown: :puke:

:hi: Dahlin':*

[peterh]

80. Personally….I think it’s DOA….

Not mentioned in most articles was a (concurrent??) ruling….I’m only surmising from the item below, but my take was that there was a 5-2 split to just outright rule in favor of the cabal which I feel will place enormous pressure on the lower court to rule likewise….



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday remanded to a lower
court a dispute over the secrecy of Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 energy
panel, ordering a new review of whether the presidential panel must make some
disclosures to aid the litigation.
Seven justices agreed about sending the case back for further proceedings. But
within that group, a 5-2 split emerged over whether the court should reexamine
the disclosure request or rule for the Bush administration.

[Neecy]

62. repulsive

These meetings were held with OUR tax dollars, the documents were produced with OUR tax dollars, Cheney's salary is being paid with OUR tax dollars, yet we're not entitled to know who was at these meetings or what was said???

Time for a second American revolution.

[Alpharetta]

63. Will they be hunting with Cheney this weekend?

[Jim__]

65. They sent it back to the lower court

My understanding is they refused to force him to disclose his papers; but the lower court can still do that. Of course, if it does,I expect the lower court's decision will then be appealed.

[orthogonal]

67. Hiibel

So the Supreme Court rules (in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada) that I have to tell my name to any cop who asks, but Cheney, on my taxpayer dime, can hide entire meetings with his oil indudtry buddies from me?

That's freedom!

[Dover]

69. From Reuters...........read the whole article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Thursday to require Vice President Dick Cheney to disclose the records of the controversial energy task force he headed in early 2001.
The justices set aside a ruling that Cheney must comply with a federal judge's order to produce the internal White House documents or give a detailed explanation of what was withheld and why.

The Bush administration has been criticized by Democratic lawmakers for excessive secrecy concerning the energy task force and other instances.

The Supreme Court case received widespread attention when Justice Antonin Scalia went on a duck-hunting trip with Cheney in January and then refused to remove himself from the case. He maintained his impartiality could not be questioned.

The high court's 7-2 ruling on Thursday sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court for more hearings on the government's arguments...>>

http://tinyurl.com/3gdqt

[Dr Fate]

83. Well, at least Kerry can point to this when the media starts hounding him.

Kerry can say "I'll give you the records you want as soon as Bush gives you his."

[truthspeaker]

70. SC justices: bribed, threatened, or blackmailed?

Same question I asked in 2000.

[lucky777]

72. Another bad decision -- what a surprise

These people make me so ashamed of my profession (law professor). Sometimes I don't know what to tell my students, esp since I want to keep my job. The truth is: the law is a sham.

Even since Bush v Gore, we have had a series of bad decisions and punts. How dare these people get dressed up in robes and parade around with solemnity -- they are just a bunch of fakes and fools.

The bottom line is that open government requires the release of papers generated in one's official capacity.

Make no mistake: In those papers you will find the Bush-Enron connection, plus the blueprint for the Afgan war, and a plan for dominance of the middle east oil production. You will also see how the government is being run by 'advisors' from energy companies.

This is worse than fascism, folks. This is fascism that pretends to follow the rule of law.

[hiphopnation]

73. Whaaa???

:wow: They ruled in FAVOR of Cheney?!?! After all that?!?!? I just caaaaan't believe it. "I don't know nothin' 'bout no birthin' babies." /polyana

[Q]

76. I guess the 'federal sunshine laws' are no longer...

...in play? These same laws were used to force the Clinton government to release ALL documents related to the health care task force. The law clearly states that all work product of these types of task forces are open to public scrutiny IF there are 'civilians' involved.

- It's clear that civilians (non-government participants) were involved with the Cheney energy task force...so why doesn't these laws apply? The answer is that the Bushies say they're above the law...and the SC and the Democrats agree.

[Magleetis]

77. So much

for by the people, for the people and all of that happy horseshit.

[pinniped]

87. From what I heard on the radio this morning...

they said something like the meetings can only remain secret if everyone present was part of the cabinet or something like that. Then went on to say that POS kenny lay was present at those meetings.

When he did he get annointed to a cabinet position?

[Disturbed]

88. The Top Reason

The make up of the Supreme Court is the top reason that BushCo has to be voted out!!!

If this Fascist Cabal gets re-selected I will volunteer to be part of the Second American Revolution.

"...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."