Cheney, the Supreme Court and another loss of our rights possible

[pan6467]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../scotus_cheney


Top Stories - AP


Cheney Secrecy Case Goes to High Court

53 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


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 (news - web sites)'s work on a national energy strategy.


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 (news - web sites) 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.


The Supreme Court also is known for private meetings.


"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."


Martin Shapiro, a Supreme Court expert at the University of California, Berkeley, said while the court engages in private consultation, "the justices are used to themselves making decisions on the basis of what they hear from two sides publicly."


The case requires the court to clarify a federal open-government law.


All nine members were hearing arguments, despite a controversy over a hunting trip Cheney took with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two things are important to me here.

1. No matter WHO the elected official is they still work for us, the people, and should be held answerable to us with only one exception and that is defense situations that if known could damage us. Seeing as how Energy policy is NOT a top secret defense ANYTHING that affects the people should be made public.

To those righties that post telling me to shut up and that this is the right of the President, I ask, if Clinton had done this would not have Limbaugh and the GOP led congress ordered an independant council?

Besides there is nothing political in believing that I as a taxpaying citizen have the right to know how and why policy is made by my elected government officials, whether they be city, county, state, or federal. That having closed door policy making meetings with only the representatives of the companies that profit most by the policy that is made should be investigated and most definately made public?

2. This perhaps scares me more than the precedent the judgement would set if the records are allowed to be remained sealed. That is the fact that Scalia will not recuse himself of this case. Politics aside, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Scalia has close personal ties to Cheney and therefore could influence his decision. Especially when Cheney is one of the litigant parties.

If this were to happen in any other court there would be a mistrial called and rightfully so. If this were Clinton and he had gone hunting and such with a Justice, the right would be screaming foul and demanding that the Judge be taken off the bench, not just recused.

This country is based on a representative democracy but when it comes to the truth it is in fact an oligarchy, in that how the Supreme Court rules on issues is how we are governed. Therefore, when something this serious and precedent setting comes up a justice with close ties to a litigant should recuse him/her self and not comment or use his power in any way on the subject.

This is not a point of politics this is a point of protocol, and to allow these types of closed door, secret policy making meetings to occur is to totally take away the power, respect and voice of the people.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by pan6467
...To those righties that post telling me to shut up...

Sigh.

I just chastised another member for this sort of jab (only going the other way).


FIRST!

Can we all lay off the lib/conservative/leftie/rightie bs? We're all PEOPLE, not labels.

Second, if anyone tells anyone to "shut up", well, see that little link "Report this post to a moderator"? That's what it's for.



"Tilted Politics" really needs to lighten up, maybe a party or something.

*scratches head*

[fuzyfuzer]

secrecy is a part of the government and this is not the clinton era any more Bush belives and pushes honor. this means not telling the press to him. the article was right the supreme court should have no pwer over the executive branch.

if you want to "protect your rights" you have to go and make a diference yourself as part of a group because you are who the execs answer to.

where did this whole thing come from i mean how many people out there actually try to look up everything that happens in the white house. this whole idea i believe is misguided and a misuse of the government power of the judicial branch

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
secrecy is a part of the government and this is not the clinton era any more Bush belives and pushes honor. this means not telling the press to him. the article was right the supreme court should have no pwer over the executive branch.

Well, you should research this case a little more. Bush is NOT claiming "executive privilege", which is an executive right. Bush is basically claiming that the courts have no right to order him to produce any documents, ever.

This case has parallels in the Clinton era and the Watergate trials. If you like Bush, then ask yourself this: would you like Clinton or Nixon to have been able to say, on any given issue, "sorry, that was a private meeting, I won't answer that."

NPR has a program that explained the issue very well. While there may be an executive privilege issue here had Bush claimed it, that's not what all this is about. This is about the administration claiming the power to arbitrarily classify things as private just because they said so.

An open government is a less corrupt government, I think.

[pan6467]

"The General Accounting Office is the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress. GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its Constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds, evaluates federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective oversight, policy, and funding decisions. In this context, GAO works to continuously improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the federal government through financial audits, program reviews and evaluations, analyses, legal opinions, investigations, and other services. GAO's activities are designed to ensure the executive branch's accountability to the Congress under the Constitution and the government's accountability to the American people. GAO is dedicated to good government through its commitment to the core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. "

Taken from: http://www.gao.gov/


This tells us that The GAO is a Congressional office. As Congress is GOP run, it is therefore safe to say that the GOP dominate or at least influence their policy moreso than the Dems. It is also set up to make sure tha government funding goes TO THE PEOPLE and that policies are FAIR TO THE PEOPLE.

It is the people's watchdog.
===============================================
I point this out because the lawsuit started by this investigation: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...cheney.energy/

Congressional investigative arm may sue Cheney
January 25, 2002 Posted: 7:44 PM EST (0044 GMT)



Cheney has told Senate Republicans he has no intention of releasing the information about his task force meetings.


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





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

By Kate Snow and Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The head of the General Accounting Office told CNN Friday the agency will sue Vice President Dick Cheney next week unless he agrees to provide information about the energy task force he ran last year.

"I think it's appropriate to provide the administration a few days to reconsider their position. I'm hopeful that they will provide us with the information we're seeking. It is a very reasonable and reasoned request. But the fuse is short," said GAO Comptroller General David Walker.

RESOURCES
Read the Bush Energy Plan





Walker said he would wait until after President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday before going ahead with plans to file suit, since so many Bush administration aides are focused on that right now. But Walker said the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, had to draw the line somewhere.

"This is about the right of the Congress to oversee the executive branch, the right of the GAO to assist Congress," he said. "Our concern is that never before have we had a situation where an administration has refused to provide this kind of information, whether it be a Democratic or Republican administration."

Who, when, where and how much
Cheney told Senate Republicans at a private meeting this week he has no intention of releasing the information being sought about the task force meetings, CNN has learned.

The GAO wants to know several things about last year's closed-door meetings -- including the names of energy executives who attended, when and where the meetings were held and how much they cost the taxpayers. A congressional aide said the GAO is not after minutes, transcripts and notes from the meetings.

For months, the White House has said there is no reason to provide details of the sessions and accused critics of engaging in a mere "fishing expedition."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer has repeatedly said constituents have the right to meet with their government without being scrutinized.

"There is a very important principle involved here. And that is the right of the government and all future presidencies, whether they're Democratic or Republican, to conduct reviews, to receive information from constituents regardless of their party or their background in a thoughtful and deliberative fashion," Fleischer told reporters earlier this month.

Cheney has shared limited information, but only as it relates to Enron Corp., the now-bankrupt energy trader. He told lawmakers that he met with Enron officials, including former CEO Ken Lay, six times last year.

GAO is interviewing law firms
Walker told CNN he could understand Cheney's position in not wanting to describe every detail of every meeting he has had as vice president.

"I have some sympathy for his concern about drawing a reasonable line," Walker said. But, he said, the administration decided to form this task force and put Cheney in charge. "That changed the ball game."

Walker said the GAO has been interviewing law firms to handle the lawsuit and was "very close" to hiring an attorney.

Walker said two factors were pushing the GAO toward a decision: a letter earlier this week written by four top Democratic senators endorsing the request for information about Cheney's Energy Task Force; and comments by some Republican senators who also support the release of information.

Speaking on CBS' Face the Nation last weekend, Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tennessee, said, "Let's get everything out and get it over with. I don't think there's anything there that they're concerned about, frankly."

On Thursday, two leading House Democrats again called on the GAO to file suit.

Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman of California, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Walker.

"We commend you for your efforts to resolve this matter through negotiation," the congressmen wrote in the letter. "It is now clear to us, however, that the vice president has expressed no intention of cooperating with your investigation. As a result, we urge you to proceed with a lawsuit at this time."

The two lawmakers first requested that the GAO investigate the task force in April 2001.

Dingell and Waxman said the comptroller general has "received virtually no cooperation from the administration."

"The need to obtain the information we requested has only increased over time, particularly with recent questions concerning the influence of officials of Enron in the development of the national energy policy," the letter says. "In addition, consideration in the Senate of comprehensive energy legislation is likely in the near future, and several senators have indicated an interest in the information."

Dingell and Waxman said they would prefer the voluntary cooperation of the vice president, but since it appears not to be forthcoming they believe a lawsuit is warranted.

On January 16, Waxman released a report that charged Enron benefited in at least 17 provisions of the Bush administration's energy plan.

A spokeswoman for Cheney dismissed the report as "election-year maneuvering," adding that "the issue of Enron's financial situation was never raised" in the task force meetings.

In another development, the Sierra Club said it will file a lawsuit Friday afternoon in an attempt to force the White House to reveal whom it met with while drafting its energy plan.

Allen Mattison, spokesman for the Sierra Club, said the group took the action against the Energy Task Force because "they keep stonewalling."

"Americans deserve to know who's in the room drafting the energy policy," Mattison said.
===============================================

searching the Constitution there is NO mention of any executive privelege or right to hold "secret" meetings affecting policy. If anything the fact that these meetings have no proven influence on security I submit that they should be recorded and documented for the public. To say otherwise, you are saying in effect, "let the President do whatever he wants." And as it happens that it is a GOP President the Right will blindly say "he has that right" YET, if it were a Dem. the GOP would crucify the President.

Furthermore the watchdog group "JUDICIAL WATCH" is a non-partisan watchdog. They have brought about suits against Dems. and Clinton also and won. I point to their website for those who want to challenge this info: http://www.judicialwatch.org/

**And I bring forth the link of what they ask, and the briefing for the case: http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/67/nepdgfinal.htm

Basically all they want to know are these points and that's it (as paraphrased from their website: http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/67/factsheet.htm:

Who was on Cheney’s energy task force?


What policies did the group secretly recommend to President Bush?


Why has the Administration refused to disclose this information – in contravention to federal law and court orders demanding public disclosure?


That's it. One no matter what party affiliation they maybe, MUST question why the Administration chooses to hide these accounts. I submit that if these meetings affected public policy they are therefore public records and as said before to hide them is to spit in the face of every citizen and laugh at our rights.

And I find it funny that the right will argue over the records but totally leave the whole Scalia recuse issue alone.

In the words of Earl Pitts, American, "Wake up America" Government will remain corrupt only until we stop allowing things like this to happen. The Administration is thumbing it's nose at us and we make this a partisan issue and not a right to know issue. Pathetic.

one last link: http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/67/factsheet.htm

The Freedom of Information Act which gives us the right to know how policy is made and who affects it.

Now tell me this is political or a witchhunt or whatever. Bush and Company are breaking the law of the land. Same as Nixon same as Clinton. And to say he isn't is to totally dismiss any facts whatsoever and is probably based on partisan politics and NOT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY.

**I put links instead of articles for most sites to save space. I appologize if this is a hinderance to anyone.