Bush will ask to keep Cheney's Energy records private

[Bluebear]

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A nearly three-year fight over privacy in White House policy-making is going before a Supreme Court known for guarding its own secrecy. Justices were being asked by the Bush administration Tuesday to let it keep private the records of Vice President Dick Cheney's work on a national energy strategy. (Note: Surprise, surprise.)

The White House is framing the case as a major test of executive power, arguing that the forced disclosure of confidential records intrudes on a president's power to get truthful advice.

At the Supreme Court, which will rule before July, the administration finds a last hope in a dispute that began in July 2001 when a government watchdog group sued over Cheney's private meetings. The case has never gone to trial, but a federal judge ordered the White House to begin turning over records two years ago.

The Bush administration has lost two rounds in federal court. If the Supreme Court makes it three, Cheney could have to reveal potentially embarrassing records just in time for the presidential election.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040427/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cheney&cid=558&ncid=716

[demgrrrll]

1. Yeah Tony the nation has been in big trouble since 2000. If these goofs

vote to let Cheney hide his records it will strengthen my
already steely resolve to get their sorry asses out of the WH.

[ngGale]

2. This administration always talks about lawyers until...

they need one. Which is often.

[fearnobush]

3. Well Mr. Scab-lia, Elections are bought Cheap with you at the wheel.

"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," Scalia wrote in rejecting the Sierra Club's request that he disqualify himself.

You fucking piece of dirt shit from a dead mans ass. Scumbag Scalia.

[BeHereNow]

4. I'm shocked, shocked! I tell you!

Why ever would he do THAT?
ROFLMAO-
Cause there is nothin' else to do at this point...
It just gets more and more surreal.
BHN

[SilasSoule]

5. Is Lady Justice Blind?

Or Duckblind

[Viking12]

38. Duckblind!!

See this flash movie!!!


http://www.justiceisduckblind.com/

[Skip Intro]

6. Don't get this part -

At the Supreme Court, which will rule before July, the administration finds a last hope in a dispute that began in July 2001 when a government watchdog group sued over Cheney's private meetings. The case has never gone to trial, but a federal judge ordered the White House to begin turning over records two years ago.

The Bush administration has lost two rounds in federal court. If the Supreme Court makes it three, Cheney could have to reveal potentially embarrassing records just in time for the presidential election.
______

Why "could" -? Where else is there for the regime to go with this if the SC refuses to side with them?

[Bluebear]

7. Bush will consult his "Higher Father"

re: >>Why "could" -? Where else is there for the regime to go with this if the SC refuses to side with them?<<

Bush will say the "Almighty" overruled the SC in a vision. (And 82% of FOX viewers will affirm it.)

[RoyGBiv]

12. Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson, commenting on the case of Worcester v Georgia, said, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it." And, of course, Mr. Marshall couldn't.

So there is precedent.

I quite frankly am starting to think that's what this is coming down to, an open and fatal challenge to the separation of powers.

[Just Me]

28. The "defiance" of separation of powers has already taken place.

Hell, before Judicial Watch even brought this suit, the GAO had statutory authority to request the same materials. Bush/Cheney stonewalled. The GAO took the matter to court (Walker v. Cheney) which just happened to have a Bush appointed justice sitting. He dismissed the case on totally bogus grounds. The GAO decided NOT to pursue appeal for fear that another Bush v. Gore decision would be issued setting yet another horrific precedent.

I would be shocked if the Supremes fail to uphold the lower courts' rulings that these documents be released (except that, the ruling may provide the GAO leverage to go forward with some confidence of success). If the Supremes overturn or reverse,...concentration of power in the executive (which has already successfully been pursued by hook or by crook by this wicked administration) will be stunning proof that the balance of power established by the constitution is so diluted as to effectively destroy the democratic republic.

[shanti]

24. don't count on it

if so ordered, they will just stonewall some more! you don't really think they'll turn over anything of value, do you, especially before the election?

[Tellurian]

31. Here is what Cheney is trying to hide:

and why all the secrecy..


all the info is right here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1478069

read all the material info in the first few posts by talltree and seemslikeadream

[Just Me]

33. Thanks. I bookmarked that "nuclear" thread.

I remember reading an article concerning the Gen IV nuclear reactors and, after doing some investigation, realized that,...there could be only one reason why the administration would be pushing that plan: proliferation.

We have the most evil leadership, EVER!!!

[Viking12]

37. "Could" may also refer to the indetrmined nature of the info

News organizations cannot assume that the information IS emabarrassing to the administration. Although I find the possibility to be very unlikely, the information COULD be benign.

[Borgnine]

8. Where's the outrage?

No, instead, the media pundits are trying to build a furor over Mrs. Kerry keeping her tax returns a secret. Sigh.

[bagnana]

13. what the hell is wrong with the media?

Why don't we have to know if our laws and policy are being bought and paid for by administration donors? I want to know who was sitting at that table and if they were ALL donors to Bush/Cheney and if their input differed in ANY WAY from the eventual plan. Disgusting.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. did that "oil rig services executive" take part in the energy task force?

If so, it's not just a case of Scalia consorting with a defendant whose case he's set to hear, it's potentially BRIBERY by someone (the executive) who doesn't want to be unmasked in the process.

Impeach this evil fuck; Presidents are temps, Justices are for life.

By law, the Justice is to recuse him/herself if he/she could reasonably have impartiality called into question. For him not to recuse himself here, it shows that he is incapable of seeing an obvious instance of where others can see conflict of interest. The issue is his ability to maintain the peoples' trust for the court; if he can't or won't, he's unfit for office.

[jus_the_facts]

10. he proved he was unfit for office w/o question in sElection 2000....

:evilfrown:

[dusty64]

16. Oh he see the conflict alright, but

once again decides to stick his thumb in the eyes of the People. Never have I seen a more unqualified extremist on the courts, although our junta has many more where he came from.

[Tellurian]

32. After reading the Energy agenda, Scalia might be legitimately "scared"..

at this point in time. If he is thinking of his family, he definately is not going along with what is here in this infopost:


and why all the secrecy..


all the info is right here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1478069

read all the material info in the first few posts by talltree and seemslikeadream

[ClintonTyree]

11. What about..........

all of that "truthful advice" the CIA gave us before the Iraq attack? "....arguing that the forced disclosure of confidential records intrudes on a president's power to get truthful advice." All of that "truthful advice" came out in the 9/11 commissions's probe. Why is this "truthful advice" different from the already "truthful advice" exposed in the 9/11 probe?
This administration's insistance that everything is "too sensitive" for the American public is staggering.
We cannot allow these thugs to be elected in November!

[Disturbed]

14. My bet

is on the SC to side with Bushco. Scalia will sway the court to keep Pres. Cheney's meeting secret. Scalia wants another invite to slaughter birds.

[tabasco]

23. The only hope is for O'Connor to show some integrity.

Scalia has to be an embarassment to most of these justices. I hope O'Connor has enough integrity to side with the people, not the corporations.

[Benhurst]

25. O'conner is as likely to show integrity as she is her thong. n/t

[tabasco]

26. I'm sending her one from Victoria's Secret.

I'll throw in a bustier. Still a better chance with O'Connor than Rehnquist and the Corruptices.

[dusty64]

15. Now this is a shocker.

About as predictable as the extreme courts decision will be. Our only hope is if oconnor or kennedy realizes the writing is on the wall if they reverse course and cover for their "pResident". There is NO doubt how the evil three will vote and it should lead to the removal of scalia.

[Q]

17. This isn't a 'separation of powers' issue...

...it's all about protecting criminals in high places from prosecution.

- There are already laws on the books requiring a task force that uses private citizens for consultation or advisors to make their work product public. This is the same law the Republicans used to force the Clinton health care task force to open ALL their records to public scrutiny.

- The real question here: is the Bush* government exempt from laws that have been applied to other administrations? Will they be allowed to continue on this course under the guise of 'separation of powers' to cover their abuse of power and office?

[Claire Beth]

18. hmmmm....why is it that they want the records kept private??

hmmmm... I wonder why!!! ??

[leesa]

19. If the energy traders and the WH did not act inappropriately

then there is nothing to hide. Executive privilege, my ass!

[LeftHander]

20. The law is one thing and public policy is another

If they did nothing wrong or illegal then it should be no problem to open the books....

The problem with Bush and secrecy is that they are hiding criminal activity. They are using the executive branch to commit crime.

[TahitiNut]

21. "Casablanca, Inc."

This corporatist cabal apparently views the Bush/Cheney White House Cabal as a private corporation akin to a government contractor. Instead of being a Constitutionally responsible part of the Executive Branch, they are owners of a license - a license to rape and pillage, a license obtained by the competitive bidding process known as an "election" where all's fair and no promise is enforcible.

They claim greater degrees of privacy and autonomy than any private citizen is afforded. This is the party of privileges, entitlements, and perquisites -- representing only the ownership class. Property is supreme. Human rights are fungible and human beings are commodities -- with varying values based on nationality, ethnicity, and gender compliance.

[rman]

22. why would "national" energy strategy be "private"?

I can imagine a *personal* energy strategy would be private, but isn't a national strategy by definition a national - and thus public - matter?

I guess we're supposed to blindly trust Cheney to do what's best for everyone. :eyes:

[hang a left]

27. I wonder exactly what he means.

"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined,"


What kind of trouble, from Scalia's point of view, does he find this country in?

[samsingh]

29. can't let the truth out

but they will hound Kerry to explain every action and event in his entire life.

hypocrasy and double standards.

[Tellurian]

30. THIS IS WHAT CHENEY IS TRYING TO HIDE:

and why all the secrecy..


all the info is right here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1478069

read all the material info in the first few posts by talltree and seemslikeadream

[wabeewoman]

36. One things for sure

its more than just the fact that oil companies were writing environmental policy. I also think seizing Iraqi oil fields were discussed. As hard as they are fighting to prevent its release, there must be lots of politically damaging info in it. The surpise is that these jokers seem to have no foresight at all.

[Tellurian]

41. Agreed, why the need for foresight, when no worries over prosecution?

[The Stranger]

34. God Damn, this is a softball.

"The court utilizes the process of confidential deliberation just as the executive branch does. Memos are drafted, deliberations occur and drafts of opinions are circulated — all behind closed doors," said Kris Kobach, a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "In both branches, deliberation is more candid, honest and valuable if it sometimes is sheltered from public scrutiny."

Open deliberations are what the Courts are all about. It is written into their jurisprudence. Does the Court meet with parties separately? Are the meetings between the Court and the parties public? Are the records of such meetings public record?

This would destroy any comparison to Cheney's secret meetings and dealings.

This also segues nicely into Scalia's ex parte meetings with Cheney. Those were also not subject to public scrutiny.

THIS IS ONE THAT SHOULD BE HIT OUT OF THE PARK.

[maddezmom]

35. LISTEN NOW on CSPAN3 or CSPAN Radio ~ 11:25 am ET

[goclark]

39. What happened?

I can;t get CSPAN now.

[TrueStory]

40. There is no Secret regarding Dick's Energy Policy

Just read and analyze the National Energy Policy prapared by Dick Cheney.

A short result of my analyzis can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=6991

[Tellurian]

42. This is what we are concerned about...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1478069#1478258


once a privacy ruling is granted by the SCOTUS, Bush & Cheney, will be allowed to sequester information concerning nuclear proliferation under the guise of Energy Policy.

What Bush and Cheney fail to recall is they are paid a salary with taxpayer dollars and are accountable to the general public concerning expenditures of public funds including the decision making process that brought them there.