Posted on 06/24/2004 7:16:23 AM PDT by green iguana
Just breaking on CNN.
Please see posts 89 and 95.
Criminal investigations result from crimes. Information which is needed for criminal investigations are not protected by privilege or separation of powers.
As to merely bad motives- that should only be handled politically in a free society.
Boy is there lots of egg on my face!
Mine too.
Imagine having to have open strategy discussions while negotiating contracts with employee unions.
It's a confusing ruling, decided mainly on procedural grounds. The district judge ordered the files released, before the case was over. The government appealed, and the Court of Appeals said that, because the case wasn't over in the district court, it (the Court of Appeals) had no jurisdiction to overturn the district court. The Supreme Court held, 7-2, that the Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction to review the district court's order. The opinion for the Court (written by Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor and Breyer) decided that jurisdictional issue and nothing else. It has the effect of sending the case back to the Court of Appeals without telling it how to decide whether or not to release the files (but effectively postponing any release until after the election).
Stevens joined that opinion but added a concurring opinion hinting that he thought that some, but not all, of the files should be released.
Thomas (joined by Scalia) concurred in part, saying that (a) the Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction, and (b) the district judge was wrong and none of the files should be released.
Ginsburg (joined by Souter) dissented and said that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction.
Did the district court ever allow the rest of the case to be heard? If not, I can see the AC kicking it back down again, instructing the DC to finish the case & to make an additional ruling.
The Sierra Club, a liberal environmental club, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, sued. They argued that the public has a right to information about committees like Cheney's. The organizations contended that environmentalists were shut out of the meetings, while executives like former Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay were key task force players.More biased than a release from the DNC.
I know you just posted the article, I meant to say the journalist who wrote that propaganda has no shame.
NO! IT WAS NOT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE.
Just watched legal guy on FOX and he said that if the WH had claimed executive priviledge, they would have lost and would have been required to turn over the documents.
However .. I believe our admin is much smarter than Hillary's goons, and we did not fall into their trap. Now, those people who attended the energy meeting are protected.
THIS IS A MAJOR VICTORY FOR CHENEY AND THE BUSH WH.
BIG major difference between Hillary's healthcare and Cheney's energy .. Hillary was NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT - she was just the wife of the president. She did not have the power or authority to hold such a meeting, and she certainly did not have the power or authority to keep it private.
Cheney, however, WAS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT, and as such he is allowed to hold meetings without having to reveal who attended the meeting. Remember, it was the environmentalists who filed the suit .. because none of them were invited to the energy meeting. They wanted to know who Cheney met with .. and it was none of their business.
It is a rout. The only other things better would be an annihilation and a complete annihilation. Clinton was on the receiving end of the latter. I agree on your guess of the losers.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
he never said the 2 million protestors were liberal...
and when they dragged hillary from the white house...
he didn't see too clearly...
t
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.