Supreme Court sets aside ruling that Vice President Cheney must turn over energy task force records.

CNN

[green iguana]

Just breaking on CNN.

[blaquebyrd]

Assuming you forgot the sarcasm tag, I agree. We pay the bills we should know who are at the meetings unless it involves secret national security issues.

[MeekOneGOP]

AP story via The Dallas Morning News .....

High court declines to order release of Cheney energy task force records

09:28 AM CDT on Thursday, June 24, 2004

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - 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.

The issues in the case have been overshadowed by conflict-of-interest questions about one justice.

Justice Antonin Scalia had defiantly refused to step down from hearing the case involving Cheney, despite criticism that his impartiality has been brought into question because of a hunting vacation that he took with Cheney will the court was considering the vice president's appeal.

"Special considerations applicable to the president and the vice president suggest that the courts should be sensitive to requests by the government" in such special appeals, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry.

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.

The Bush administration argued that privacy is important for candid White House discussions on difficult issues. The high court did not specifically address that question, however.

The case had become a potentially embarrassing election-year problem for the administration.

---

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/062404dnnatenergytaskforce.2921ca3b7.html

[1Old Pro]

Yep, the media will have a cow. The whine will be deafening.

[sinkspur]

This guarantees that it's off the radar until after the election.

[The G Man]

"Justice Antonin Scalia had defiantly refused to step down from hearing the case involving Cheney..."

Uh, "defiantly"??

[Badeye]

I'm surprised at the ruling, and at the vote count (7-2).

Happily surprised.

[Mo1]

Well this should set the liberals into a tizzy

[MeekOneGOP]

AP story posted on #42 .....

[jackbill]

The UPI story provides more insight:

Cheney wins partial victory in high court

WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday a lower court had the power to block an order that requires Vice President Dick Cheney make energy board records public.

The lower appeals court had refused to do so, saying it lacked jurisdiction.

But while a majority of the justices said the appeals court was mistaken as to its jurisdiction, it declined to say whether the lower court should have done so.

The ruling sends the case back down to the appeals court with instructions for a new decision based on the Supreme Court majority opinion.

The ruling is a partial victory for Cheney, who wanted to keep the records confidential.

Two public interest groups, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, contended that Cheney invited energy lobbyists and executives to the table when the board formed national policy.

A federal judge ordered Cheney to produce the records before trial, and a federal appeals court refused to block that order, saying it did not have jurisdiction.

Two justices dissented, while two others dissented in part.

[Arrowhead1952]

TDIDS ping!

[ICX]

DU poster FlubyaDubya says: "Just makes me want punch something, and then cry."

What a typically liberal reaction.

[MeekOneGOP]

Good ! I hope so.

[freeeee]

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right."
- Thomas Jefferson, as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88

The raw nerve of this blowhard "Jefferson" to imply we need an informed electorate!

Every good American knows we're supposed to be kept ignorant of what government does, and trust it'll keep our best interests first and foremost. After all, that's what this country was founded on!

[mattdono]

Oh, man, the DU'ers are losing their heads (LOL!). Here's an "interesting" (and I use the term quite loosely) post over there...

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.

TE-HE. They're losin' it.

[dead]

Hooray for closed government!

You are really going to stand for the concept that federal government officials cannot receive information and opinion in private?

That would severely limit the desire for any expert in any area to ever offer their advice on controversial policy decisions.

[ladtx]

The DUmmies are hilarious with this news. They are all beside themselves, truly vitriolic stuff over there real hate speech going on.

[sarasota]

Yes, typical Democratic responses driven by childish emotions of anger and tears.

[cspackler]

No, he/she did not..... I see that you're no familiar with freee

[green iguana]

The raw nerve of this blowhard "Jefferson" to imply we need an informed electorate!

I agree tha the electorate needs to be informed. But do you not think that the executive branch sometimes needs honest, informed opinion? Information they may not be as complete if it were to become public knowledge?

[epluribus_2]

sounds like when x42 launched missles at empty tents and the aspirin factory...