Posted on 06/24/2004 7:16:23 AM PDT by green iguana
Just breaking on CNN.
Since it was called 7-2 elsewhere, it sounds like 5 justices issued the majority opinion, 2 issued a concurring opinion with different reasons, and two dissented.
This is a MAJOR victory.
Absent legitimate matters of national security, absolutely. These behind doors consultations have a direct bearing on public policy.
And as I've heard here so very often - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
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.
"Reprobate" huh? I bet that name was selected without the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm. LOL
What went on "behind doors" resulted in the President's Energy Plan - which you can still read at the White House web site.
It's all there for you to see. If there is a particular item in the plan, are you saying that you would agree with it or oppose it, not on its merits, but based on who on Cheney's panel proposed it?
Absolutely. I also think the American public needs the same honest informed opinion.
Information they may not be as complete if it were to become public knowledge?
Perhaps you could explain to me why this knowledge, which has a direct bearing on public policy should be held from the public? Perhaps we mere peasants are too weak or stupid to handle the truth?
I know for a fact if this ruling had been made during a Democratic adminstration the reaction on this website would be volcanic.
Judicial Watch is not conservative. It is opposed to whomever is in power. It has opposed the Bush Administration in all matters from the start.
And as I've heard here so very often - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
You usually hold the position that that statement is nonsense, but suddenly you’ve embraced it to try to make your point.
An expert in any area (stem cell research, energy, weapons development, etc.) can have an opinion that he sincerely believes, but would rather not state publicly for a variety of reasons. The opinion may be controversial, and revealing it could have a negative effect on his stock price, for example.
Since he is beholden to his shareholders, he cannot express that opinion publicly, though he may sincerely believe it and he may be absolutely correct.
I think government officials need to hear those opinions.
If the government then makes policy decisions based on that input, they can state their reasons for it, without any negative impact on those from the private sector who offered their expert advice.
The elected official needs to be held accountable for policy decisions, not those private citizens who offer their opinions about it.
Yet another flop from "Crackpot Klayman!" He must be making money from his perpetual failures, or he would have given up, by now, right? Just like Clinton... It's all about Larry!!!
That answers "what". The behind doors consultation answers "why".
Our foreign policy is driven by energy concerns. The nuts and bolts of what drives that policy is of the utmost importance to the American public.
[I have not followed the Cheney case so I realize this might not be a valid comparision.]
There's no comparison. The Energy proposal was drafted totally within the Executive Branch by govt employees, not outsiders.
The Dems are trying to pretend that somehow Enron wrote it. That's simply not true.
Meanwhile the Plan has been sitting in the Senate "dead" for three years.
Who do you think the Dems will try to blame for the next blackout(and ther will be more of them)?????
Perhaps you could explain to me why this knowledge, which has a direct bearing on public policy should be held from the public? Perhaps we mere peasants are too weak or stupid to handle the truth?
Because if the persons advising the executive branch know that what they say will become a matter of public record, they may not be as forthcoming and the information given may not be as useful.
Free people are entitled to privacy. Public servants hired to serve our best interests are not. We're their boss, and we are entitled to know what they're doing. An ignorant electorate cannot make intelligent informed opinions. The difference in their privacy vs ours comes from who serves who.
An expert in any area (stem cell research, energy, weapons development, etc.) can have an opinion that he sincerely believes, but would rather not state publicly for a variety of reasons. The opinion may be controversial, and revealing it could have a negative effect on his stock price, for example.
How about a compromise - the consulants can remain anonymous, but what they say is public?
Dead, you seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the immense potential for abuse here, and the danger of an ignorant electorate?
Come on, in todays world if you give the libs one line in a 20,000 word document that they can use against you it will appear as a headline in the New York Times.
I refer you to the 9/11 Commission report, a public document where they've done just that.
There was no "secret" meetings, just private. This allows for candid conversation.
The Energy task force put out a 69 page list of recommendations, what the Dems want is every scrape of info that went into developing the report. Do you really think they want this for any other reason than to squeal about Halliburton, Enron, etc. They just want the Bush Admin to give them the knife with which they can stab them. I say none of their business, judge the product, not the process. IMHO.
I like that idea - tho' in practice it might be rather tough to to keep secret the list of people who serve as consultants.
Free people are entitled to privacy. Public servants hired to serve our best interests are not. We're their boss, and we are entitled to know what they're doing. An ignorant electorate cannot make intelligent informed opinions. The difference in their privacy vs ours comes from who serves who.
This is not about protecting public servants, its about protecting the right of private citizens to consult in private with the government.
If a woman in Oklahoma writes to her senator about a health care bill and includes personal information about her son’s medical condition, do you have a right to read that letter? Does the NY Times have a right to publish her letter? If not, why not? How is that any different?
How about a compromise - the consulants can remain anonymous, but what they say is public?
It would be better, but it still may hamper a private expert’s freedom to give a totally honest opinion on a controversial matter. He may not want that information known to the general public, for a variety of reasons, but may think it important that a policy maker know. It could be information that only a limited number of people know, and revealing it would jeopardize his position. Or it could put somebody who works for him in a foreign country in a dangerous position. Demanding that information like that be made public may not necessarily make for a better informed public. It might just make for less informed policy makers.
Dead, you seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the immense potential for abuse here, and the danger of an ignorant electorate?
Nobody is saying that a private-sector expert cannot reveal his opinions or information to the public after revealing them in private. But you’re trying to use the courts to force them to. Yours is the big-government opinion.
Tough. Government in free countries is going to be exposed to criticism. Liberals can say what they like, then the administration and their supporters can give their side. In the end, the public will weigh both arguments and decide who is right. I call this novel concept "Government by the people".
judge the product, not the process.
You've never heard of 'alterior motives'?
Remember brouhaha over Hillary Care? My, how times have changes.
Free people are entitled to privacy
Exactly. Presidents HAVE ALWAYS HAD the executive priviledge that allows for PRIVATE individuals to hold PRIVATE conversions with the Executive branch.
This has been around a long time.
There's nothing new about this...with the exception that it is George Bush's administration and nothing (NOTHING!) that any member of his administration does can be accepted as ok.
This case is not about who was at the meeting or "the why" (as you called it). It is simply about connecting the "EEEEVVIIILL" Dick Cheney with the "EEEEVVIIILL" oil interests, which include (GASP!) the "EEEEVVIIILL" Ken Lay of the "EEEEVVIIILL" Enron coporation. (Nevermind the fact that, at the time of the meetings, Enron was considered a respectable company; in fact, a darling amongst many financial and indsutry analysts).
It is political grandstanding, pure and simple.
I have to admit, freeeee, I have read many of your posts and wouldn't disagree with many of them, but I have to disagree with you on this.
Lastly, the "Anonymous Compromise" is interesting, but it would be impractical.
Apples and oranges.
I don't believe they argued "executive priviledge".
I believe they argued it was a "separation of powers" issue.
I think (but am not certain) there is a difference.
.
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.