White House secrecy, and the US Supreme Court (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:40 am

AP, WASHINGTON (April 27) - 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 **** Cheney's work on a national energy strategy.

Vice President **** Cheney has said the White House has the right to conduct private consultations. 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. Watchdog group Judicial Watch and the environmental group Sierra Club want the task force papers made public to see what influence energy industries had in outlining national energy policy. The Sierra Club accused the administration of shutting environmentalists out of the meetings while catering to energy industry executives and lobbyists.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices in court filings that no energy industry officials participated improperly in meetings. He maintains that forcing information about the sessions into the open violates the separation of powers among the branches of government...

All nine members were hearing arguments, despite a controversy over a hunting trip Cheney took with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an old friend, weeks after the high court agreed to hear Cheney's appeal. Scalia, the vice president and two of Scalia's relatives flew together on a government jet to Louisiana for the duck hunt at a camp owned by an oil rig services executive. ''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.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:58 am

Originally posted by fable
''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.

LOL!
This suggests that Scalia can, in fact, be bought, but that it would take more than a bottle of cheap wine behind a duck blind to do it! Our Supreme Court only accepts the highest quality bribes!

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:17 am

I think Scalia's engaging in an artful bit of misdirection. The point isn't that he can or can't be bought, but that a personal friendship with a defendant can override the required "objectivity" of the Court. Traditionally, judges recuse themselves under such circumstances, but Scalia doesn't want to sit this one out.

baileyatbrats · Post by **baileyatbrats** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:34 am

5 to 4 anyone?

And When Scalia casts the deciding vote, making the decision another 5 to 4 in favor of this Administration, he'll claim thast he was impartial.

I think the real questions is: What WAS his price? He has been bought by the Administration. A sweaty weekend in a swamp with Cheney, just wasn't the payoff, there was something else.

We don't even have a constitutional model for these kinds of schenanegans. The frames of the constitutionn must have just assumed that the juciary would remian impartial because they believed in liberty and ethics.

Hmmmmm

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:42 am

ethi what?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:34 pm

Does your country have nothing more interesting to worry about?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:51 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
Does your country have nothing more interesting to worry about?

Well, yes, but do you really want me to start a thread about Bush's "dropping trou and bending over" for Sharon a week ago?

baileyatbrats · Post by **baileyatbrats** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:32 pm

What could be more important?

What should we worry about?
This issue goes right to the core of what's wrong in America, and why America feels it can inflict it's twisted morality on the rest of the world.

The Vice President's energy task force was one of his first acts in office. It pre dates 9/11 (orchestrated by people with ties - or at least a relationship - to the oil industry and 'energy') it pre dates the war in Iraq.

In an open and democratic society we should know what decisions are made by our leaders. The War in Iraq is about oil, because that's Iraq's most saleable commodity.

The Energy task force helped to set into motion the President's budget and legislative priorities. Tax breaks for energy producers means less money for education, less money for the poor and less money for a realistic defensive infrastructure. It also has helped to erode our environment through letting polluters off the hook.

What we're all about is 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

When one branch of our government decides that it can play by rules that seek to suppress those ideals by hiding it’s dealings with corporations, then we need to be concerned.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sat May 01, 2004 11:29 am

Originally posted by Morlock
Does your country have nothing more interesting to worry about?

Wrong question. This is important, and goes to the heart of our democracy.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry, on protecting the public's right to know.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Sat May 01, 2004 2:33 pm

There is no Democracy in this world.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun May 02, 2004 7:16 am

Well, there was a damn sight more of whatever passes for it in the US before Dubya's term in office. And if you don't see the difference between a nation before and after the Patriot Act, or before and after the detention of "armed combatants" without counsel and trial, perhaps you need to look a bit harder.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sun May 02, 2004 7:27 am

This is actually quite incredible. A very dear friend of mine passed away 2 days ago. His sister lives in Seattle, and wants to fly home to the funeral. Only, her husband can't come. Why? Because he is a Pakistani moslem politically active in the civil rights movement. So the authoroties have confiscated his passport and refuse to give it back! The mind boggles!

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun May 02, 2004 7:53 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
This is actually quite incredible. A very dear friend of mine passed away 2 days ago. His sister lives in Seattle, and wants to fly home to the funeral. Only, her husband can't come. Why? Because he is a Pakistani moslem politically active in the civil rights movement. So the authoroties have confiscated his passport and refuse to give it back! The mind boggles!

There are thousands of foreign students, according to national civil rights organizations, that have had their passports taken without being "revoked," which means they no reason need be given. I've heard of a few of these cases, and as you say, there seems to be no sense involved in the selection. Quite a few are Chinese nationals. (Since when are we afraid of mainland China invading?) Most have no ties with any political organization. At least a few were American citizens who have names that apparently were confused with other students. The bloated, secretive agency that has been created to oversea all this has absolutely zero visibility to US citizenry, and zero transparency. Typically, none of the presidential candidates are discussing this, and the media of course avoids all discussion of a topic that could force Americans to actually think for a change, instead of make snap decisions.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sun May 02, 2004 8:30 am

Well, our foreign minister actually discussed the case on national radio today, together with the US ambassador, the father of the deceased and a representative of Amnesty International. The father of the guy who passed away happens to be a retired 4 star general and politician, and he doesn't take no for an answer. If his daughter and her husband aren't present and accounted for at the funeral on Wednesday, a lot of caca is gonna hit the fan. The husband is an American citizen with a solid business, who just happens to have Pakistani parents. I have actually never heard a US ambassador soo meek and humble.

The thing is, last summer we had a couple of students with ethnic Indian background who didn't get back to their families for summer vacation because of the same circumstances, and it caused quite a diplomatic mess.

I find the entire situation frightening beyond words, but when the backlash comes, and it will come, you will probably enjoy at least a decade of more liberal politics before the national memory gets wiped again.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun May 02, 2004 9:43 am

Originally posted by fable
...Typically, none of the presidential candidates are discussing this, and the media of course avoids all discussion of a topic that could force Americans to actually think for a change, instead of make snap decisions.

@fable: Ralph Nader has the repeal of the Patriot Act in his platform, and I think he rails against it with some frequency. (I would provide a link, but I feel that linking to Ralph's website is sorta like shaking the devil's hand...) But why should anyone else discuss it? They all voted for it. OTOH, Kerry could easily change tact on this subject, just as he has on all others...

And, IMO, there is no such thing as a topic that can "force" people to think. Any subject can be a basis for intelligent discussion, but no subject can force such a thing.

@Moonbiter: it depends on your defintion of "liberal."

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun May 02, 2004 6:03 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
@fable: Ralph Nader has the repeal of the Patriot Act in his platform, and I think he rails against it with some frequency. (I would provide a link, but I feel that linking to Ralph's website is sorta like shaking the devil's hand...) But why should anyone else discuss it? They all voted for it. OTOH, Kerry could easily change tact on this subject, just as he has on all others...

The fact that Nader's against it might be the kiss of death: he is possibly the Most Boring Person on the Planet, unless one includes John Travolta's discussion of his belief in Dianetics.

And, IMO, there is no such thing as a topic that can "force" people to think. Any subject can be a basis for intelligent discussion, but no subject can force such a thing.

If most of the major media of this country decided that something was An Important Issue, and they gave this AII genuinely substantive coverage, I think it would push a surprising number of Americans into thinking when they'd rather be doing something else. You don't want to call it "force?" Fine. Call it what you want; you like to nitpick, anyway.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:15 am

@Moonbiter I understand your frustration and I will not walk lightly like many do on this subject. We are a nation with open borders, we have a problem with people coming to our nation with mal intent. If you completly fit a profile (an I agree that our current government is a ****y pig headed pridefull texan) that we consider dangerous. It might take a little understanding. Would I say the same thing if they were profiling middle class white males? Probably not... Is it fair? No. But to consider it something incredible horrible is illogical in my book.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:52 am

@Thug: What on EARTH are you on about? Am I to understand you don't find this entire fascistoid thing horrible? Define "illogical" in that context, please.

Tom2 · Post by **Tom2** » Tue May 04, 2004 8:01 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
when the backlash comes, and it will come, you will probably enjoy at least a decade of more liberal politics before the national memory gets wiped again.

So moonbiter is an optimist - who would have thought

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 04, 2004 8:21 am

So moonbiter is an optimist - who would have thought

Most say "curmudgeonly old cynic," but I sort of like "optimist" better.

I have stated earlier that I think things move in cycles. In the case of the US politics, the cycle repeats itself rather often, like every 20 years or so, since it seems to me the people have a "national memory" of about your average goldfish, and a quite astounding inability to learn from past mistakes. Not that we don't over here in Europe, it's just that we need about 50-100 years between each time we step on the same banana peel. So yes, I'm an optimist.