Posted on 12/09/2002 11:18:22 AM PST by finnman69
Suit Against Cheney Task Force Dismissed
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the investigative arm of Congress against Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said the case filed by Comptroller General David Walker against the vice president is an unprecedented act that raises serious separation-of-powers issues between the executive and legislative branches of government.
"No court has ever before granted what the comptroller general seeks," wrote Bates, an appointee of President Bush.
Obiously politically motivated.... *rolls eyes*
No doubt the Wash Post/NY Times front page headline will be "RATs LAWSUIT DISMISSED AS A FRAUD AND WASTE"... NOT!!!
I couldnt have cared less. It was a failure from the start.
I'm all for open government, but I'm also for a fair and balanced press. Right now, the latter is of more concern to me than the former. Gov't can't get by with SQUAT! (a good thing) The media needs more watching than the government in 2002. Sad.
I should clarify: The liberals in gov't get all kinds of cover from the media. The rule is: Lapdog for the left; attack dog for the right.
"No court has ever before granted what the comptroller general seeks," wrote Bates, an appointee of President Bush.
Thanks for the good news.
Comptroller General David Walker is a former senior partner for Arthur Andersen and was appointed by the Clintoon. This attempt of his was unconstitutional and was purely political.
Let's see an investigation of every audit he has been in charge of to see how many of his AA buddies and former AA Buddies like him have profited from a waste of our tax $ due his control of the GSA!
Maybe so, but I don't recall the GOP dragging the Executive Branch into court.
"III. CONCLUSION The parties have presented significant statutory and constitutional issues that, on the surface, appear in need of judicial resolution. However, the judiciary must refrain from "deal[ing] with [] difficult and sensitive issue[s] of constitutional adjudication on the complaint of one who does not allege 'a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.'" Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 224 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
Here, the Comptroller General has suffered no personal injury as a private citizen, and any institutional injury exists only in his capacity as an agent of Congress – an entity that itself has issued no subpoena to obtain the information and given no expression of support for the pursuit of this action.
The absence of congressional endorsement for the investigatory and enforcement efforts of its agent – especially where this lawsuit has profound implications for Congress's own investigatory and enforcement powers – leaves to "the realm of speculation whether there is a real need to exercise the power of judicial review," id. at 221, and deprives this action of the "'concrete adverseness . . . upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions,'" id. at 224 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 204)).
The historical record, moreover, does not suggest that plaintiff's "attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form" is consistent with historical experience. See Raines, 521 U.S. at 829."
Good job, judge. Maybe you're one of the few who respect the Constitution!
The way our Judiciary goes, you'd think many never looked at the Constitution past their first year of law school.
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.