Scotus expresses concern in Cheney case about piercing presidentialsecrecy

[Robbien]

(04-27) 14:09 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court appeared troubled Tuesday by the prospect of letting the public have a look into private White House policy meetings, a hopeful sign for the Bush administration's aggressive defense of secrecy in the case of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

The court is the latest stop in a nearly three-year fight over access to records of the task force that prepared a national energy strategy. The president put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge and the group's recommendations were friendly to industries. Most stalled in Congress.

Raising the gravest concerns about unnecessary snooping into the executive branch was Justice Antonin Scalia, who stayed in the case despite conflict-of-interest questions relating to his friendship with Cheney. He said a president has broad authority to keep matters private.

"He has the power as an independent branch to say, `No, this intrudes too much upon my powers. I will not do it,"' Scalia said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/27/financial1709EDT0297.DTL

[Bake]

1. I'm shocked, I tell you ... SHOCKED!

Big f'ing surprise there.

Bake

[Warpy]

2. Of course the scumbag Scalia says that

...he knows who put him on the bench, and like any good GOPer, he stays bought. Why this thing hasn't been impeached over gross conflict of interest in the 2000 election and this case is just more proof of how lawless and corrupt that party really is.

Whether or not Cheney wins or loses, the opnions in this case are going to be a great read, and will probably ehco the opinions in 2000, "not to be used as precedent" and all. After all, they don't want to give a Democrat permission to use this dodge!

Every opinion of this Extreme Court will be go down in infamy and be used as examples of abuse of power in the future.

That is, if they allow us to DUMP BUSH so that we have a future.

[jdj]

3. So Clinton had a broad authority to keep matters private?

And all he had to do was accuse the pubs of "intruding on his powers" to "keep matters private"?

Oh, this is another one of those republicans only rules.

[bearfan454]

51. It sure is

No doubt.

[SEpatriot]

4. He said a president has broad authority to keep matters private.

This may be the single-most scary line I have read to date. "Broad authority." We are going to have an election in about 6 months, let's hope its not our last one!!

[dusty64]

43. Very scary! Didn't the

extreme court rule against Clinton to force him to submit to any investigation by congress? I really do seem to remember that, fucking hypocrits! They really are about to lose their last shred of credibility. What would happen if we all simply refuse to follow their rulings anymore?

[SEpatriot]

44. Impeachment is the thing

Scalia has dishonored the very underpinning of the judicial system in America. Until the people take back the Congress and the White House this kind of thing will continue and will snowball. If any judge in your state had that kind of relationship w/a party who had a case in front of him and didn't recuse, the outrage would be enormous. Same thing w/Thomas in the 2000 election dispute - but the press just seems to ignore it. It's up to the people. Period.

[Mountainman]

5. The president put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge

This is what gets to me. Bush doesn't put anyone in charge. They knew what the plan was before they picked him to be sock puppet in chief.

What needs investigative reporting is the actions of all those who put chippy on the throne and what was their motive.

I remember in 1999 before the repukes had their nominations that they started their news whoring. They acted like they didn't know who to run then all the talk was about Bush being a good candidate. I said to myself "what makes him qualified?" He was only governor of TX for a short time. He had no foreign policy experience. Yet they forced their way into the White house like they had a plan. Then Cheney was put in charge to find a VP. Walla, he picks himself.

They had a plan for oil years before 2000. The thing that put them on hold was the Clinton presidency. That's why the VRWC went after Clinton. They wanted Bush 1 to do their dirty work but had to use Bush II instead.

That is the information that we will get if we get to see all the documents.

[SEpatriot]

7. Very good point

In 2000 there was a coup in America. If an election had been held in any other nation and the candidate who lost the popular election was then installed by a court whose members included the husband of the losing candidates' transition team, we would immediately recognize this as a coup. But we laid down and let Bush takeover, he has been emboldened by the temerity of the opposition in this country and is now getting away with murder as the complete takeover of the country takes place.

[NashVegas]

11. that's why they fought the recount so hard

they had an agenda they badly wanted to put into play.

[MaineDem]

6. This is very very scary!

Scalia knows everyone is watching him and he's flaunting this!

I can't believe how angry this makes me.

As someone said at the rally on Sunday there are only three words that should help people decide for whom to vote: THE SUPREME COURT!

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

8. Scalia's nothing but a goon in a judicial robe...scumbag.

Scalia makes me sick. He DOESN'T deserve to be given judicial authority.

JB

[Emboldened Chimp]

9. How can info that affects PUBLIC POLICY be private?

[ewagner]

49. Bravo!

That's exactly the point!

ANYTHING that is used as the basis for public policy must be public record. The public has the absolute right to know not only who is making public policy, but also what issues are considered in making that policy. Separation of powers has NOTHING TO DO with this issue. The issue is HOW public policy is made by any branch of the government.

As usual, the true issue has been obfuscated by a smoke screen.

[aquart]

10. There is a mechanism to impeach a justice. What is it?

[goclark]

13. Is this the final decision of the court?

I don't understand...this sounds so scary.

[hang a left]

16. no. they just heard arguments today. they will rule in July. n/t

[SoCalDem]

18. They already "ruled" when they leaked that reference to

"being troubled"..

When people start marching and picketing the court..and maybe their homes, the press might pay attention..

We already know who was there.. KennyBoy, Bandar,and heads of all the other oil companies...probably DeLay,Lott, Hastert,Frist and some others..

It was just a "jam session" to fine tune the methods that they would employ to bankrupt California,divvie up Iraq, and how to line their pockets..

[hang a left]

19. not necessarily SoCal see my post a little further down. n/t

[leesa]

36. Suppose OBL was there? Lot's of old and current ties to the families

of bin Laden and Bush. Old crime families hang together. I know Poppy was still on Carlisle with the bin Laden's and they had had a meeting the day before 9-11.
Was OBL part of the plan to start the gigantic ME wars with the Bush Crime Family??
They certainly needed that trigger event and it was so very perfectly planned...fit right into the plan they had made in July of 2001 to carpet bomb Afghanistan before the snow came (It was planned for October)

[mike1963]

28. Amendment .357

:grr:

[wabeewoman]

31. I've been asking the same question

I think its time to begin impeachment proceedings against Scalia and Thomas...

[orwell]

12. I Get (Buy) With a Little Help From My Friends

Fat Tony lays down the smackdown for the Bush Crime Family.

It's nice to see you can still buy a little justice in this one horse town.

O

[Robbien]

14. This misses the point. Cheney is not the President

He does not have Executive Privilege. He is Vice President and as such cannot claim Executive Privilege.

What is Scotus thinking?

[theboss]

47. Cheney never claimed executive privilege

That's not the issue.

[hang a left]

15. Usually the justices play devil's advocate do they not?

They normally don't give away how they will rule when they are listening to arguments. They ask alot of questions and drill the attorneys.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt, FOR NOW, I will reserve judgement for July.

If they rule in favor of the WH, all is lost folks. It is completely over. It is time to examine your options. This will bew the final test of the American public. Stolen election, got away with it. 9-11- getting away with it. Lied us into war-got away with it. Trashing Iraq and it's people-getting away with it. Remove the checks and balances and get away with it and we are toast.

on edit: just didn't read right.

[Tellurian]

27. They did give away one thing...the time line..

So, the handover to Iraq is scheduled for 6/30...the SCOTUS decision is in July, probably the end of July closer to Aug. I don't think we will ever hear the SCOTUS decision rendered until after the fact, when Marshal Law is declared. They sure as hell aren't looking forward to another election debacle to deal with- for fear of precipitating Civil War.

They have too much to deal with...link Betchel is in place, linkTheir Nuclear Shell game is on track

If nothing else, the SCOTUS must maintain the impression of a dignified body. In the end, the Supreme Court must have clean hands.. So, I think we have several months, tops, before they play the trump card.

That is, If Impeachment proceedings aren't brought about soon...we're toast, for sure.

[hang a left]

29. I read the Bechtel story earlier today.

I just read the nuclear post you linked me to. I would like to pick your brain for a minute and ask you to clarify what you are saying.

[Tellurian]

37. For one thing...

Does Bush appear to be worried about the election? My answer is no, he doesn't. Where IS his focus? His focus is on extending the Pats Act beyond the 05' sunset clause and having Ashcroft push through Pats Act II.

The Supreme Court- What is going on there? Cheney is trying to set a precedent broadening the powers of Executive Privilege. In essence, they are using a "shill" argument, as they always do, in front of the SC to get a ruling to keep certain related "advise" read (accountability) for their actions relating to "nuclear proliferation" stuff, and who knows what else they have up their sleeves, out of the jurisdiction of Congress and the courts. Don't forget, Nuclear energy falls under Cheney's hand..

They are surprised Bush is losing popularity faster than their time frame will allow. They've moved the date up by six months on completion of nuclear reactor plans. They can't keep all these balloons up in the air much longer before things start falling apart. Iraq is their biggest balloon and it's about ready to burst.

Traditionally, when repukes know they are losing, they always pull the plug..I think they realize time is not on their side and will go the ML route within the next few months..say by 9/11. They love that kind of symbolism..

Is this what you wanted to know?

[hang a left]

39. Yes. I wanted to get your thoughts on this.

You seem pretty convinced. I am hoping that we still have a little more time.

[Tellurian]

40. Consistently, our problem has always been...

we've underestimated them.

I don't think we have that luxury as an option anymore.

Actually, the way to shake them out of the bushes (pardon the pun) is to start the ugly rumor in the Congressional Halls...or a misplaced headline somewhere...maybe salon, and see what happens.

[peterh]

17. Well….so much for our experiment in the concept….

Where Democracy is accountability and governance for the people, by the people and of the people.

Scalia seems to be telling us that we should keep our distance…..not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind….

now where did I place that shaker of salt....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. I guess Scalia's bucking for another vacation with Big Dick.

[w4rma]

21. There are 7 Republican appointees on the federal Supreme Court.

There are 2 Democratic appointees on the federal Supreme Court.

Kennedy: Reagan
Thomas: Bush
Souter: Bush
Ginsburg: Clinton
Stevens: Ford
Scalia: Reagan
Rehnquist: Nixon
O'Connor: Reagan
Breyer: Clinton

[TahitiNut]

22. IF "he has the power as an independent branch" ...

... then what the fuck are they doing in front of the Supreme Court???

After all, the Supreme Court is just the third of the three branches of goverrnment. :eyes:

Catch-22? Why not just tell Rehnquist to go pound sand? Yeah. Do it. Please. Please?

In a sane world, the mere fact they appear is proof they haven't a Constitutional leg to stand on!
This is the most corrupt adminstration in this country's history!

[Just Me]

23. Even Scalia realizes that this case will set precedent,...

,...for all presidents, right or left or up or down or inside or out.

This is just bullshit.

If the Supremes actually sanction this kind of secrecy and exclusiveness and, essentially, concentration of power in the executive branch,...we are totally f*cked.

But, they won't do it,...not without setting clear limits on both sides.

I am still not worried.

We have the spectrum setting on the bench and they are certainly not going screw things up like this right-wing extremist administration.

[Disturbed]

24. One step closer.

Another term for Bushco and we will have the Plutocratic/Theocratic Police State that the NeoFascists are working toward.

[peacetalksforall]

25. Proof positive that Cheney is President...yes in deedy.....

Someone should send Scalia the distinction George Washington used - the difference is in protecting the people and not covering something up.

Well, if that's the test...what to we have to be protected from by knowing who was in the meeting and who wrote (ah said) what?

And are you covering something up.

Someone, please tell Scalia...the thief.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. They're covering up

that big map of Iraq with the oil stains on it.

[TankLV]

30. ...unless it's a DEMOCRATIC President, then it's OK to snoop.

So, Clinton's health care task force was okie dokie to publish, but the dick's secret meetings are not?

Do they even care how hypocritical they are?

Scum.

[SemperEadem]

32. How cute!!! they have concerns

feeding the monster they created in 2000.

[BattyDem]

33. If they set the precedent ....

that allows the Executive Branch to operate in secrecy, then it truly is over - the constitution means absolutely nothing. If the Executive Branch doesn't have to answer to Congress, or SCOTUS, or the people, than our democracy is dead. And the worst part about it is the sheeple won't even notice. :(

[goclark]

34. What Are The Chances That Scalia Wins?

This scares me to death!

[leesa]

35. Concern?? Oh my, my such strong language!!

Perhaps we should try the 'treason' word. What are they hiding in those records, oh, weak fools of the Supreme Court?? I hardly think they can call themselves judges or even lawyers if they do not side for the right of the people to know what their government is doing in their name....botched future business scams or not.

This is NOT a private corporation! They are not CEOs.

[bpilgrim]

38. yeah, and you see a$$crust made PEIRCING ILLEGAL! - GET BACK TO WORK!

they don't want them to see their PLANS for IRAQ c -> HALIBURTON!

peace

[Pallas180]

41. It's time to print up bumper stickers:IMPEACH SCALIA/REHNQUIST

and what are we going to do about this destruction of the Court and
the constitution?

[burrowowl]

42. I thought that in a

republican (as in representational)'democracy' the people and the tax payer had a right to know what the scalawags are up to in order for the people to make informed decisions on which scalawag to elect.

[LeftHander]

45. Scalia Eats 8 other judges

Burps up ruling in favor of Cheney secrets. Then stomps on some baby ducks with Dick and drinks a barrel of oil.

[theboss]

46. I think this will be dismissed on a technicality

I didn't fully understand this case until the Slate article today. This was a writ of mandamus, not a true appeal. Basically, it's a dispute over discovery in a case where - as Scalia (God forgive me) rightly points out - the relief would be discovery.

Basically, I think they are going to tell the parties to come back when they actually have a decision....which would be a victory for Cheney.

[leesa]

48. But they aren't private meetings. That's the whole point.

[Josh]

50. But they made Hillary reveal people for Health Care -

they made her turn over the names of everyone in her Health Care taskforce. Isn't there already a precedent for Cheney to be compelled to turn over the names?