Breaking late: Court ruled that Chaney has to reveal names - energy panel

[cthrumatrix]

I saw this on Dow Jones or newswire. His last appeal is the Supreme Court.

Appeals court refuses to rehear Cheney energy task force case

Thursday, September 11, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(09-11) 14:13 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

A federal appeals court rebuffed Vice President Dick Cheney, refusing to intervene in a lawsuit delving into the role of business executives and industry lobbyists in formulating the Bush administration's energy plan in 2001.

The administration won only three votes in favor of rehearing the request to step into the case in which Cheney and his energy task force are being ordered to turn over a large number of documents to the conservative group Judicial Watch and the environmental group Sierra Club. The request for a rehearing went to nine appeals court judges.

The rejection Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit leaves the Bush administration two choices.

The first is to ask the Supreme Court to consider the case. The other is to return to U.S. District Court where Judge Emmet Sullivan says the administration must comply with requests for documents or give detailed explanations about the materials it intends to withhold from disclosure.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/11/national1713EDT0754.DTL

thanks for the link (updated)

[diplomats]

1. Of course, we know how the Supremos will rule

sigh

[Democrats unite]

3. Everbody also thought they knew how the Supremes

were going to rule on sodomy. Guess what? they were wrong. Never under estimate the Supremes.

[xchrom]

14. actually this court is on track

to be conservative in the extreme -- the sodomy case or the invasion of privacy{using heat sensors on a house} are the exception. 5 of the justices are the facists they are made out to be.

[Festivito]

30. AND, sodomy case made pubbies want more con judges.

"See how 'librul' the court is." ...so "we" need to fight for Bush's new judge lists....

I think Energy Task Force material release depends on where and how much the Bush house of cards can take another poke.

I wish I knew more, but, it seems to me that the names issue is trivial, versus what they said and what went into the policy verbatim. And, even if what they said and subsequently wrote would say something like: "Ken Lay will get a free ride." Our press will run it once and ignore it.

Cheney hands over names, a small tempest erupts, the court is held up as - cough - non-partisan - cough - and life goes on as the rities hope, with more judicial appointments and a perception that they are not partisan hacks.

They are partisan hacks.

[Demobrat]

19. There's no comparison.

The sodomy ruling could do no personal harm to Cheney or Bush. This is a completely different situation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. They have to agree to hear it in order to rule

[Bake]

26. I don't think the Court will grant cert on this one.

The Supremes generally don't like to get involved in crap like this. I don't see them agreeing to hear the case. I could be wrong, of course.

Bake

[aquart]

28. It's a democracy-ending precedent if they decide for Cheney.

It would be a more lethal decision that the one-off gift of the presidency.

[XEON]

6. Dems dilemma!

Too tired to fight. Please encourage others.

[XEON]

9. Cat ASS?

You are a real drag.

[John_H]

27. Aren't their hands tied after ruling against exec privlidge for TBD?

Any lawyers want to take a shot?

[ramblin_dave]

2. link

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/11/national1713EDT0754.DTL

[Demobrat]

5. The supreme court huh?

Let's see...I'll bet they rule that to reveal the names would do the country "irreparable harm". Any takers?

[Langis]

7. Let me fix that

"Let's see...I'll bet they rule that to reveal the names would do the Bush Administration "irreparable harm". Any takers?"

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. But the Bush Fraudministration IS the country!

Geez... haven't you been paying attention to your daily FAUX propoganda brainwashing??

That's why we're all "Anti-Americans", remember? :eyes:

[Demobrat]

18. Oops.

Thanks.

[ComerPerro]

8. This is great news

I am glad to see this.

[Ignis]

10. The Supremes will likely sing their old tune.

But the hope here is that this issue will get a kick in the media because of this ruling, which will make the SCOTUS look even more foolish if/when they rule for this administration's misuse of 'executive privilege'.

Of course, getting the US media to kick anything this important to the democratic process is rather a longshot...but we can dream.

[FlashHarry]

11. Will the Supremes even take it?

I wonder if it's too hot to handle. Plus, stuff like this cuts both ways. The GOP doesn't want a precedent that will stymie them when there's a Dem in the WH.

[never cry wolf]

12. I don't think they'll take it

I think that the more moderate of the RW SCOTUS judges realize what the hell is going on and that their judgements on the sodomy and the affirmative action issues were meant to send a signal of their dissatisfaction with shrub. The rats are deserting the ship, IMHO.

[Parche]

13. dickhead cheney

Is this the time,
Are we on the threshold of good news
Will we finally get to indict the Evil vice president

[TNDemo]

15. I think timing may be key.

I think the first plan would be to put this off until after the election. How long do they have to appeal this? If there is not time to do this then they might go ahead and ante up now and hope it is old news before the election. I am sure they will take it to the supreme court. With all the disillusionment with the war these papers could be a huge hit.

[Nevernose]

17. I don't know about federal jurisdictions

But I believe that in most state courts, the appeal must be filed, usually, within 10 - 30 days, or at least a notice of intent to file an appeal.

[Bossy Monkey]

22. I suspect that he'll just ante up, but wait to release the stuff until the

sheep are distracted. Today, for instance, would have been a good day. I'm no expert on Supreme Court procedure, but am reasonably sure that he'd have to wait until February or so just to see whether they'd hear the appeal. Even though as mentioned above, SCOTUS would most likely roll over and give Cheney his way, it would bring much unwanted attention to nefarious Bush-Cheney doings during Dem primary season. Much better from their point of view to release the material now, as you suggest.

[TNDemo]

20. I think I know what he will do.

He will eventually get ordered to turn it all over. He will turn a few things over but not what they want. They will have to go back to court to get him to do it. He will then repeat the process over and over to drag it out as long as possible. Please tell me he can't do this.

[calimary]

21. Hey, LET HIM drag it out, if it comes to that!

It certainly didn't help Nixon. And the longer he dragged it out, the worse it got for him re: protestors, hostile and confrontational media, angry anti-Nixon pundits, and public opinion polls. The wall just kept crumbling underneath him, and soon enough, it all gave way. It was drip-drip-drip and evolved to trickle-trickle-trickle and then into gush-gush-gush.

As my husband said last night, it's getting more like the '60's every day.

[spooky3]

24. I agree with your husband. The pendulum is about to swing back.

[HootieMcBoob]

25. yeah but

there has to be a media that will report the dragging out in a way that will get the country riled up.

what was there about watergate that got the country so riled up?

you would think they would get riled up about any number of crimes and cover-ups committed by this administration, but they don't.

[KoKo]

23. Kick........Good News........

Thanks!

[frank frankly]

29. that horrible, horrible man

kick

[cap]

31. if only the recall in CA could be stalled

in time for these papers to be released.

[skeptic9]

32. GREAT news! IRAQ WAR widows may get PROOF their loved ones ...

... may have died in large part so that Cheney's/Ken Lay's/Dubya's buddies could acquire Iraqi oil rights.

Cheney's shield against embarrassing task force questions is crumbling just as documentation of the Cheney taks force's mischief is emerging.

I wonder whether IRAQ WAR widows know that the Cheney-Ken Lay task force distributed oil maps of Iraq and lists of international competitors for Iraqi drilling rights. (See http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml ).

Maybe some of those widows will emulate 9/11 widows and organize to become a force for revealing the truth about the phoney war in Iraq. (This maladministration sure has produced a lot of widows!)

I wonder whether Tim Russert smells blood in the water and will raise these issues aggressively Sunday morning. Cheney is scheduled to be his sole guest on Meet the Press.