Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (15300)	6/24/2004 3:23:29 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Scalia's decision on the election of Bush over Gore will go down in the history books as a sham. In Alan Derchowitz's book he points out how Scalia even went against his former positions on other cases ...It was as though he had forgotten all his former rulings as he and the other pro Bush judges abandoned all honor and professional judgement and made a ruling that history will some day look at as a turning point in American jurisprudence.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (15300)	6/24/2004 5:25:33 PM
From: Selectric II	Respond to of 173976

Court: Cheney records can stay secret <Ed.: Cheney must have taken all the Supremes duck hunting -- Not just Scalia. LOL> chron.com June 24, 2004, 3:45PM Case sent back to lower court for further review, however Court declines to overturn death sentences Associated Press RESOURCES • The decision • Background: White House Energy Task Force Litigation WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration won't have to reveal secret details of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force before the election, after the Supreme Court ruled today that a lower court should spend more time sorting out the White House's privacy claim. In a 7-2 decision, justices said the lower court should consider whether a federal open government law could be used to get task force documents. Even if that court rules against the administration, appeals would tie up the case well past November. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal district court judge who ordered records opened to the public had issued too broad a release of documents. "Special considerations applicable to the president and the vice president suggest that the courts should be sensitive to requests by the government" in such special appeals, he wrote. The issues in the case have been overshadowed by conflict-of-interest questions about Justice Antonin Scalia, who sided with the majority. Scalia defiantly refused to recuse himself from the case, rejecting arguments by critics who said his impartiality was brought into question because of a hunting vacation that he took with Cheney while the court was considering the vice president's appeal. He and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately today to say U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan "clearly exceeded" his authority in ordering the administration to release records. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter said in a dissent that Sullivan should be allowed to consider what records should be released. They said it was not enough for the Bush administration to request blanket protection from having to make records public. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that while the White House hasn't had a chance to review the decision, it is pleased. "We believe the president should be able to receive candid and unvarnished advice from his staff and advisers. It's an important principle," he said. At issue was a 1972 open government law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires government panels to conduct their business in public, unless all members are government officials. Until the government produces some records, it won't be clear who drafted the government's policies, lawyers for the groups that sued to get the records argued. Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry. The Sierra Club, a liberal environmental club, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, sued to get the records. They argued the public has a right to information about committees like Cheney's. The organizations contended that environmentalists were shut out of the meetings, while executives like former Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay were key task force players. The suing groups allege the industry representatives in effect functioned as members of the government panel, which included Cabinet secretaries and lower-level administration employees. The Bush administration argued that privacy is important to ensure members of such panels can speak candidly. It contended that the open records law did not apply to the task force. The case had become a potentially embarrassing election-year problem for the administration. Thursday's decision buys the administration more time. If it loses in the appeals court, the administration can return to the Supreme Court in another extended appeal before having to release information. The Sierra Club had asked Scalia to stay out of the case, because the justice flew with Cheney to hunt in Louisiana in January, weeks after the high court agreed to hear the administration's appeal. Many Democrats and dozens of newspapers also called for his recusal. Scalia, a Reagan administration appointee and close friend of the vice president, had said the duck hunting trip was acceptable socializing that wouldn't cloud his judgment. "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," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo announcing his decision to stay on the case. The Supreme Court was the latest stop in a nearly three-year fight over access to records of the task force that prepared a national energy strategy in 2001. Most of the recommendations stalled in Congress. A separate lawsuit seeks thousands of documents under a separate law, the Freedom of Information Act. A judge ruled this spring that those documents should be released.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (15300)	6/24/2004 5:28:09 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Scalia rants against 'activist judges', yet actively campaigns his political positions. ROFLMAO. You have no f'ing idea what the term, "activist judges" means.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (15300)	6/24/2004 5:32:24 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

He rails against the growing 'secularism', and fails to see or understand the roots of secularism in the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution were deeply religious, and had God involved in every phase and stage of their governing activities. Somehow the issues you revisionists have claimed to be their intent never entered the picture. The Establishment clause is meant to allow for free exercise of any religion (or none), not destruction of it. It means that the government is not to establish a state religion.