| Author |
Message |
    
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:12 am: |     |
Jan. 23, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two senators have written Chief Justice William Rehnquist to raise concerns about Justice Antonin Scalia's impartiality in a case that involves the White House's energy task force.
Scalia went on a hunting trip to Louisiana with Dick Cheney, a longtime friend, shortly after the court agreed to review a lower court's decision that required White House to identify members of the vice president's task force.
Scalia has said there is no reason to question his ability to judge the case fairly.
But in their letter, Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a presidential candidate, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont questioned whether the court can disqualify a justice who declines to withdraw from a case. The lawmakers asked if the court has issued any guidelines about accepting gifts or travel.
"When a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on a vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man's case," the senators wrote.
Scalia also had dinner with Cheney in November, two months after the administration asked the justices to overrule the lower court.
- - - - - - -
This is more like the court of Louis XVI or some central African kleptocracy than it is American. What the heck is going on with these people?
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 410
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Don't you see? It is no longer necessary to avoid apparent conflict of interest because now the Good Guys are in power. They would never cheat or bend the rules, because they have Character, Integrity, and they are Changing the Tone in Washington.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 771
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
It's duck hunting and dinner, for pete's sake. It's Washington circles circling with each other. Would it be better if Scalia dined with Rep. Waxman? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4416
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
In other words, "the fix is in". 
Seriously, I don't think the Court ever set up rules on this sort of thing because up until the 2000 Presidential election nobody questioned their integrity. Now a days? Well, let's just say there is a little more question on politics on the court. Anyway, is there any doubt which way Scalia is going to go on something like this? |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 378
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
A key reason to vote DUMBYA out. If this maniac gets another 4 years, he'll do more damage to the Supreme Court. Lets just hope the Judges that are not in this administrations back pocket stay well and don't retire. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
cjc, think of it this way: imagine you're involved in a lawsuit. The opposing party spends a weekend on vacation with the judge. Your lawyer wants to file for a mistrial. Do you let him, or is it OK?
It would be better if Scalia dined at home with his family. |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 379
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
"It's duck hunting and dinner, for pete's sake".
Isn't that what The Fuhrer and Eichmann were doing, when discussing the Final Solution?.
I know this is way over the top but give me a break with the only duck hunting and dinner bit.
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 380
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Come to think of it, if Cheney was a little shorter and wore the right hat, he'd look like a meaner version of Elmer Fudd. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 411
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
I don't think "the fix is in". That's why avoiding bad appearances is the standard.
There is a middle ground between conspiracy mongering and being gullible. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
I can't believe you defended this as normal, cjc. It's not defensible.
"Everyone's doing it." That makes it OK? Do you have kids, cjc? Does this defense work with you?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4420
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
With Scalia this isn't as big a deal as it would be if it involved one of the centerist justices. Everybody knows how he is going to vote on something like this in the first place.
If Cheney had been wining and dining Souter or Kennedy, well I would be more upset.  |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:08 pm: | |
If everyone knows how Scalia is going to vote, before the arguments have even been made, what does that tell you about his suitability as a justice? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 862
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Aparently you are the only one who is "sure" how Scalia is going to vote. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 776
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
There's ample reason call for someone to recuse, but I don't think dinner and duck hunting is one of them. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 903
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
You really don't? You don't think that the fact that these guys socialize and go on vacation together makes the impartiality of the judge kind of suspect? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4421
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
A friend is a NJ Superior Court Judge. He recused himself in a case involving the son of someone he knew from HSA, more than five years previously. And no, the people involved don't live here so don't speculate. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Then what does it take, cjc, to call for recusation, if that's a word? Kickbacks? I am in utter disbelief that you feel this way, and it leaves me with little to say. I mean this is so plain, I don't know how to use reasoning to tell you that the sky is indeed blue.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
vor
Citizen
Username: Vor
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
What do the Lawyers (or judges if there are any) who post on MOL think? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 777
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
I'd like the lawyers to weigh in here too. I know Scalia recused himself from the "Under God" case because he had spoken publicly on the matter before it got to the court. Thomas, O'Connor and others have recused themselves when they own stock in cases that come before them.
But having dinner and shooting ducks...sorry. And the case is institutional in terms of Executive Privilege, not a criminal proceeding against one individual.
Again...lawyers, please weigh in. I could be wrong (there....I said it again!).
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 416
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
"having dinner and shooting ducks" sounds like it couldn't possibly be a forum for influence or interaction, and yet, for some reason, businesses spend millions of dollars a year dining and entertaining. Wonder why. You're saying that hunting trips and dinners only have the purposes of nutrition and fieldsport? |
Robert Little
Citizen
Username: Boblittle
Post Number: 88
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
I don't have anything profound to add, let alone anything legally profound. I did litigate a judicial disqualification at the district court and court of appeals level. Having lost at both stages, we didn't pursue it to the Supreme Court; of course, it didn't deal with a Supreme Court disqualification, although the statute is identical.
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) recusals are rare because they invite 4-4 splits, which doesn't help anybody, as they leave a lower-court decision standing and establish no precedent.
Abe Fortas got in trouble (and resigned) because he was still unofficially advising LBJ while on the court.
It's safe to say that justices are demi-gods of DC high-society, which invites conflicts, but is likely unavoidable. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 417
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Fair enough. I don't expect them to live in a bubble.
Cheney probably said "Tony, I suppose I don't have to tell you how important to our Movement.."
"Dick, please. Don't worry." |
Steam Roller
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 306
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Ukealalio, I’m inquisitive. Your initial post contained the phrase “he'll do more damage to the Supreme Court”. I realize that you are referring to our President Bush, yet that peculiar phrase indicates that Bush is somehow responsible for damaging the Supreme Court. I am missing the connection. What “damage” has Bush already inflicted upon the Supreme Court?
As if that wasn’t enough, I want you to be aware that many of us take umbrage with your desire to declare The Fuhrer and Eichmann conferring together regarding the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust. You attempt to draw a correlation of some sort, where in actuality all you truly accomplish is to present yourself to have blatant bias not only against Bush, but against Jews and Germans alike. What’s next on your agenda?
Please apologize.
|
Redsox
Citizen
Username: Redsox
Post Number: 395
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
ukealalio,
thank you for once again proving my theory that all threads on mol lead to the boss(springsteen) or the fuhrer....two of the most disturbing cult figures of the 20th century..... |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 938
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
It is my recollection that the late Justice John Marshall Harlan would not attend the State of the Union because he was afraid some facial reaction to the speech might give the appearance of bias. He believed that the Justices should "live in a bubble".
A few years ago a couple of Superior Court Judges in NJ were reprimanded for going to the Governor's inaugural party. It was considered "an appearance of conflict".
Lieberman was Attorney-General of Connecticut and Leahy was Attorney-General of Vermont. They are credible on the subject of judicial conflict of interest. |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 381
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Redsox-You better not utter those words about the Boss at a Big Train gig, you'll start a full scale Donnybrook.
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 382
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:31 pm: | |
Steam Roller-I don't think I'm the only one who thinks the Supreme Courts reputation was tarnished after the fiasco of the 2000 election. If one of the more liberal leaning Judges leaves or dies, he will look to replace them with someone who thinks a lot more like him.
As far as the Fuhrer-Eichmann remark, your way off base. First of all, it was a joke, as I stated, "I know this is way over the top". Secondly 3 out of my 4 grandparents were German Jews (and I like myself just fine, you on the other hand...).
The only thing I will apologize for is my post may have caused other MOLers to read your drivel. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 596
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
I'm with drivel on this one.
Does anyone believe that judges live in media free bubbles, along with their law clerks, spouses, security, friends, relatives, in-laws, bridge partners?
They weren't nominated by the bubble committee, but by politicians - and voted upon by our pure senators, you know, Torricelli and his compadres.
Stop hiding your heads in the sand.
DWM |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
It's so depressing to hear from our conservative friends on this. After eight years of carping over every little thing in the Clinton administration -- after all, weren't Whitewater and Hillary's commodities trades all about access and influence? -- apparently there are no ethical lines that can possibly be wrongly crossed by the Republicans. If they do it, it's OK. All that's missing from this thread is Strawberry writing, "boring."
I suppose you can think that way if you want. But don't expect the rest of us to believe you have any real principles. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 782
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
We will toss our leaders over the side. We do it when they break the law, generally. Can't say the same for the opposition.
Your vehicle for getting to our sense of supreme outrage is ducks and dinner? You'll have to do better than that, and it's not that hard. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 447
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
cjc,
Noone has to do better, or do anything for that matter. Just the facts are enough
(and I think even you think this one stinks even a little. cmon....).
I don't think Whitewater proved anybody broke any law (and how much did that cost us- don't get me started).
Being a detailed critic, but then suddenly looking at this event at face value, coming from you, is what plays thin.
No way this one passes the smell test and I haven't seen a conservative here offer anything more than "it was just ducks & dinner". Yikes.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
A cute bit of alliteration designed to trivialize. Sort of like, "it was just cash and carry." |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 787
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
drewdix...Whitewater had 12 convictions, including the sitting governor or AR. What about proven guilt isn't there for you?
Scalia has recused himself from cases before, as have other justices particularly when there's a financial stake somewhere.
But hey -- perceptions are reality, and if this is so heinous, go for impeachment of Scalia. I just think the charge is way overboard for these two people who have been working in DC forever. Aside from ducks and dinner, what over 'details' am I missing on the links between Cheney and Scalia? |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 449
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
you are right; I was referring to convicting the Clintons specifically as "anybody'. my lack of clarity.
Still a colosssal wasted witch hunt.
I think that Cheney and Scalia getting chummy is at least eyebrow raising and worthy of disseection for it's potential ramifications.
Quick apologists feel awfully transparent to me. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2138
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
It is inappropriate for a defendant and a judge to have a social relationship. Period. Scalia should recuse himself when Cheney's case is before the Supreme Court. It isn't complicated. It isn't ambiguous. It will be damaging to the Bush Junta if he does not recuse himself. The is no upside here for the Junta. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
There is no impeachment for judges of the Supreme Court. They are in for life. They can volunteer to resign, but there is no way to force them down.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2815
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
All federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, are subject to impeachment, trial, and removal from office. Removal would be for some actual misconduct in office, and not just an "appearance of impropriety". Duck season with Elmer Cheney and Bugs Scalia might be a little fishy (and something which for a "normal" judge might be grounds for recusal), but not impeachable. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:45 am: | |
Nohero, that contradicts what I learned in school. Perhaps I learned wrong. I just checked the constitution. (Gotta love the web.) It has provisions for impeachment of the president but not of judges. Where is such a provision, or when has it happened?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2816
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
In Article III, Justices and other federal judges hold their office "during good behavior"; the only way they can be removed is by impeachment. In the 60's, Justice Abe Fortas was threatened with impeachment, and ultimately resigned. In the 70's, there were "impeach Justice Douglas" and "Impeach Earl Warren" movements. Lower court judges have been impeached and convicted. The only one who comes to mind is Alcee (sp?) Hastings, who wound up getting elected to Congress afterwards. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
Thanks! You're misnamed. You are a hero.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 450
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
tjohn hits the nail on the head again. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 790
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
As for relationships, how many House and Senate members recused themselves from our most recent impeachment due to a social and political relationships with the defendant?
I know, I know...apples and oranges,right?
So, Scalia should have recused himiself from the Election 2000 decision because he was friends with Cheney? |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6233
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
obviously |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 504
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
does anyone know if it's true that both Scalia and Thomas had major conflicts of interest with regard to the FL 2000 decision? I thought Thomas's wife and Scalia's son had connections to the Bush/Cheney campaign. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4472
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Why should that make a difference in their judgement and who are you going to appeal to, The Supreme Court?  |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 791
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
No...you appeal to the unbiased and connection-free members of Congress. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Thomas' wife was with a company that was going to do major personnel sourcing for the new administration -- read big placement fees.
Scalia's son is now making workers' lives miserable in his job at OSHA.
Unbiased and connection-free members of Congress? I assume you're joking. The GOP-run committees aren't going to pursue this any more vigorously than they pursued Valerie Plame, or for that matter the stonewalled 9/11 committee. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 505
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
right Tom,
it was really Thomas who personally stood to realize major $$ from a decision in Bush's favor.
that is really indefensible, it stinks so bad. I'm still surprised the press let that go at the time.
if this had been Bader-Ginsburg's husband benefiting from a Gore victory the howling and screeching from Republicans would still be going on. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 452
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
cjc,
Yes. Don't think that's hard to fathom.
Marginalizing this flap with a justification that everyone's biased and connected won't cut it I'm afraid.
Hey, lots of people cheat on their income tax. So is that a legitmate excuse if you got caught?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 792
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
No, but cheating is a crime. Knowing someone isn't (except for some social circles).
And I'm not saying Scalia's bias is such that he'd excuse criminal wrongdoing anymore than Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg would excuse it. I believe they're honorable people. Should Ruth have recused herself because she was appointed by the previous Administration with strong ties to Al Gore? Where does this stop? Let's ask Abe Fortas.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
This isn't a criminal case.
Did Ruth have a financial stake in the outcome of the '00 election?
Oh, and Abe says, "I resigned." |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 793
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
And Abe resigned, I recall, because it was reported he was actively advising LBJ on legal matters while sitting on the bench. It wasn't for duck hunting. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
So are you telling us that this whole scenario would be just fine with you if instead of Cheney and Scalia duck hunting, it was Lieberman and Ginsberg at Martha's Vineyard?
I don't believe you. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 794
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Yes, provided there were no business, familial or monetary interests that were before the court, linked between them or could be effected one way or the other depending on the decision of the court. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Honorable, yes, so it isn't respectful to call her Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg. Really, what's up with that?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
well I'd say the energy task force is a business interest, both from the perspective of Cheney's Halliburton holdings, and from the perspective that his work on the energy task force was his business as Vice President. Cheney's reputation is at stake in this case. That would certainly be an "interest before the court." |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4476
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
Cjc, your 12:36 post is a heck of a good arguement for Thomas recusing himself from the election vote. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 796
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
bobk - please explain.
tom....I was speaking about business interests of Scalia, as in his portfolio. Cheney's assets were divested and/or in a blind trust. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4477
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Justice Thomas" wife was employeed by a firm that was contracted to do personnel work for the new Republican administration. His family had a financial interest in the outcome of the election. In most cases this would be reason for a judge to recuse himself from a case such as this.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 798
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
If that's true and Ms. Thomas continued employment were effected by that decision, you may have a point. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 453
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
so Cheney's loyalty, indebtedness, and connection to Halliburton is also divested?
If you believe that...
The "crime" of Cheney possibly using his influence in this case could be every bit as criminal, and more so, than cheating on taxes. There's no nice, neat 1040 to refer to, but the comparison is totally valid.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 800
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
The reason for the suit is to not find how who was in the meetings which liberals claim didn't involve enough of the enviro wackos. The suit is to get the notes, which the Admin refuses to do much like Howard Dean in his energy deliberations for the very good reason that the notes may contain private, confidential data and information about their operations or potential operations that in the hands of competitors may hurt their businesses.
There have been no allegations about criminal wrongdoing. This is a way to further paint the Bush Admin as in the pocket of evil, child-killing polluters which is hardly novel.
But never mind. Hang 'em. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 457
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
enviro wackos?
I heard Dean say at the first debate that he has ordered his attorney to open these records, and that he is "fine by that". Has this changed?
And if it's such a good reason, why are the Supremes having to hear it? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 803
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Dean is leaving that question up the courts, last I read (corrections, please). He's being sued to open them, and won't open them up until a judge tells him so.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
I'm still waiting for you to tell me it would be OK with Lieberman and Ginsberg.
Throwing around hot words like "enviro wackos" and "child-killing polluters" is just noise. It doesn't make your point any stronger.
Nobody said anything about criminality, and that has nothing to do with it. This isn't about crime it's about ethics.
There must be a pony in here somewhere... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:33 pm: | |
This is why so many people are so cynical about politics these days. The level of cynicism among the participants is so high that it's naturally going to trickle down to the voter level.
There are apparently two separate sets of principles, one for Democrats to follow, the other for Republicans. The GOP wanted Janet Reno to recuse herself every time yet another call for a special prosecutor was raised. Which was every 30 minutes or so. Not that she had any particular relationship with each other, I get the sense that they were barely on speaking terms.
But one cut-and-dried case of personal influence peddling and out come the "ducks and dinner" trivializations. Pigeons and payoffs, geese and gelt, pheasants and freebies, chickens and checks -- it's all cash-and-carry government.
Tom's Big Question
There is one end of the political spectrum that is deeply distrustful of government. They feel government is too big, sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, doesn't represent the needs of real people.
So why does this same end of the spectrum, once in power, exercise such enormous secrecy? Government that can't be trusted should be forced to be as open and transparent as possible. Yet, we've got the FOIA gutted by Ashcroft, Cheney's task force hidden from view, high hurdles placed before access to Presidential papers, and worst of all the 9/11 investigation stonewalled. How do you reconcile these two phenomena?
And no, it doesn't work the other way. We feel government can be a tool for good, and can help people in their lives, and it does not follow that it best does those things secretly. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 507
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
tom,
have you read Jim Hightower's "Thieves In High Places?"
It's not as bad as you think, it's worse.
The executive branch is entirely for sale. And Bushco (as he calls the current administration) has taken legal corruption to unheard of levels.
His book isn't about the recession per se, and it isn't about Iraq, but it still makes a compelling case for voting out this arrogant bunch. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 807
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
tom...I'd respond, but when I read "Ashcroft gutted the FOIA" and when anyone uses the words "every" time, or "always"......there's no point. PS -- Ashcroft is out of the CIA leak investigation. Oh...never mind.
OK...we're evil. We very very bad and evil. And two-faced. Just ask Hightower. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 508
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
are you a politician cjc? who's this "we" you're referring to?
if you're referring to just Republicans, maybe you should read Hightower's book. He doesn't let Dems off the hook on selling influence, either.
if even interested, motivated, and informed voters are going to deny the influence peddling that's going on at all levels of government, we have no hope of ever fixing it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 809
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Sure there's influence peddling. And there should be. From farmers, labor thugs, corporate bigwigs, PTAs, NEAs, religious, non-religious, PETA, NRA -- everyone. They're citizens, pay taxes (sometimes), and have a stake. Govt should respond to these people.
Voters -- those poor, little people -- just got someone to pass a 400B handout to seniors for their drugs.
I'm a special interest, as are you. And Hightower is just a common man who rails against those who make a bundle and wants to take it away from them, curb their salaries cuz it's not 'right' and give it to people who weren't as successful and he's just so, so honorable. Please. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
I don't know what influence peddling is. The thing that bugs me is influence buying in volume. Essentially, it's massive consolidation of power. There should be limits to that. I don't mind lobbying; it's our right, as you imply, cjc.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 511
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
cjc,
obviously you haven't read the book I cited. I don't know any of Hightower's other books, so maybe he is advocating confiscation of wealth in his other writings, but I don't think so.
this is not lobbying that I'm talking about. It's essentially the takeover of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. I can't believe you are equating that with individual Americans trying to lobby their representatives.
and your reference to the drug bill (bad legislation no matter how you slice it), has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
and again I ask myself, why do I even try to argue with someone who hasn't read the materials I'm referring to, and obviously has no intention of ever reading them?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 812
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
Good Doctor, I haven't read Mr. Hightower's book, but I'm quite familiar with his failed radio program and his other rantings on TV.
If you think voters don't band together and peddle their influence (with contributions or votes), then this is over.
Corporations write legislation just as Sierra is right in there (probably just advising which forest tracts to place off limits) -- depending on the Administration. They are all made up of individual voters, combining their numbers and their money to influence the govt. Maybe you don't belong and donate to these groups, but a fair number of average Joe's out there do.
I don't know about my getting Mr. Hightower's book. Perhaps you can cite or post from it. Looking over some positive reviews on his books, they say he's short on references -- much like his radio talk show was. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2147
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
I don't understand this argument. Politics is the business of gaining and applying influence. The only option is for all eligible voters to vote all of the time for their candidate |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
for Ashcroft and FOIA, read the DOJ's own posting at http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm. I highlight this:
quote:When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.
Emphasis added. Note that the stress is on withholding, not releasing. And I read "strong legal basis" to mean, the requestor would have to take us to court. Also, the emphasis on protecting the ability of OTHER agencies to keep records secret.
Now, cjc, please explain to me Tom's Big Question}, which if you look again, does not contain the words "always" or "every." In fact, the word "always" only appears once in this entire thread, and that is in your post.
Please. Be honest. I really want to understand why there is this contradiction between distrust of government, and wanting to keep government secret. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 513
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
tjohn,
that is the point. most people don't vote, and don't care what's going on. as a result, they've ceded influence to a handful of favored industries.
and cjc, we're not in disagreement on that. you'll see above that I said essentially the same thing. if voters want to pretend this stuff isn't going on, and don't want to use their own influence to put a stop to it, then it is all over.
there's just no evidence that regular people are wielding anywhere near the influence that business is. When's the last time that a consumers' rights or environmental protection group had any influence on legislation (or better yet, in the enforcement of regulation)? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 813
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
tom...the GOP wanted her to recuse "every" time.
I am generally skeptical about the power and reach of the government. That doesn't mean that I'm against Executive Privilege, especially when nothing criminal has been alleged as is the case with Cheney, or Dean. I do think candid, frank and off the record advise is necessary for any CEO or President. And absent charges of criminal wrongdoing....I think it should remain private.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 814
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Lordy, Doctor. I"M a regular person and I'm against the Sierra Club which is why I vote and donate to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Business also contributes to that same organization I'll bet. I like Big Business.
YOU are a regular person who obviously votes and you contribute to The Wilderness Society which likes to lend a hand on writing environmental legislation when some Administration will listen. And yes, some businesses also support The Wilderness Society, as well as obscenely wealthy people like George Soros.
At the moment, this Administration listens to my guys more than your guys. I joined with other groups to get "access" to the Oval Office. Big Business -- my guys -- are 'winning.' I wanted them to win. Either way, regular people like you and me and George Soros are involved. When you win, you and your regular people can be on the 'inside' when legislation gets written. You can close off forests when you win, I will open them up when I win.
Now, if by regular people you mean the casually interested and mostly inactive voter -- who cares? If he's not putting in the effort, can't see that he should or how it works, forget it.
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 934
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
I had stayed out of this because it seemed like a close call and I was really not sure which way I thought it went. Then I read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54865-2004Jan27.html which reveals that both Cheney and Scalia were guests of an energy exec (remember this is all about energy industry undue influence). The comparison to legislators is obviously silly. They are not supposed to be impartial. Judges are and what's more, they are supposed to avoid even the appearance of partiality. Good sense would have led Scalia to hold off on the hunt till the court decides this case. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
But why is the "I don't trust government" crowd's policy more restrictive than the liberals'? And Ashcroft's memo is not just to the Oval Office.
"Every" is not in Tom's Big Question™, and "always" is never.
cjc has no interest in taking my Big Question™ seriously. Any other conservatives out there who can explain? This is an honest question -- I don't see how it works, philosophically. |
melidere
Citizen
Username: Melidere
Post Number: 620
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
tom,
if i may, i would like to take a crack at it. I think you're making the same mistake that a lot of conservatives make, which is trying to put all the issues into two camps when there are really a lot of little, conflicting camps, not just two.
Bush was elected (or not ) by an alliance of people with largely conflicting values.
One group on the conservative right has strong libertarian tendencies and a deep distrust of government.
An entirely different group believes strongly that the role of government is to intrude heavily in our lives, particularly in areas which involve 'values'. This group wants to funnel money into 'faith-based' initiatives, spend money on abstinence programs, dictate the rules and requirements of marriage.
Someone (i don't remember who) said once that 90% of all communication is projection. Bush (imho) is a classic example of that. This loose alliance of conflicting values all look at him and see what they want to see.
I don't think that the group that distrusts government and wants to reduce the role of government in our lives *IS* in power. The group in power is a cynical bunch who want to win at all costs. They believe that money should buy influence and power and they want to preserve that way of life. If that means gutting the public education system, well so be it. Too many of the 'riff raff' were using it to get a toe-hold onto the economic ladder.
The goal (for this crowd) is to funnel as much money as they can into areas where it can be funnelled back to them. That would include defense and 'faith-based' initiatives. It would exclude education. It includes the agricultural subsidies and excludes public programs for the environment. As Bill Moyers put it so succinctly right after 9/11 "in this crowd, sacrifice is for suckers".
They keep their power as long as everyone in their loose coalition still manages to misread and misunderstand their goals. But they can't keep the projection thing going for them if their decision-making process is transparent.
fwiw
meli |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 462
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
some good points, mel. Good "crack" at it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 816
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
tom...I answered your question seriously. And to retrace, you stated that republicans wanted Reno to recuse herself "every time." You "always" do this....
And concerning Reno, she sent out search parties 2 times to see if enough evidence warranted a special prosecutor in Chinagate. Both times they said there was enough there, and she declined to appoint the counsel. Compare that to Ashcroft recusing from the CIA leak issue? Hello?
Meli is right -- this bunch in DC wants to win at all costs by trying to coopt Dem tactics of spending money on drugs, education, tariffs for labor, AIDS, farmers and what not in a failed attempt to win over special interests and buy some voters who will ALWAYS be against Bush no matter how compassionate/entitlement oriented they try to be. Only Dems can funnel money to those groups and voters and really reap political benefits.
|
melidere
Citizen
Username: Melidere
Post Number: 621
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
exactly cjc. 90% of communication is projection. Since the bushies can be bought, they assume everyone else can.
They assume (making an a__ out of somebody) it is just a matter of getting the price right.
The dems, on the other hand, have this semi-religious faith in what's 'right' or 'fair'. They tend to funnel money where it can do useless things like 'the most good'. And the beneficiaries tend to appreciate it.
go figure. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 516
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
Paul Krugman summarizes it bluntly and eloquently:
"Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Paul krugman is a whining cry baby..THREE WORDS..SHUT UP ALREADY!
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:35 am: | |
I pledge Obedience to the President of the United States of America as long as he's a Republican for which I voted, one nation under mammon, divisible, with Liberty and Justice for those who can afford it.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 517
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
quote:THREE WORDS..SHUT UP ALREADY!
good to see Straberry's rebuttals remain as powerfully insightful as always. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 825
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Spare me melidare. I forget who it was that said it, but when the public starts figuring out it can vote to give itself huge portions of the Treasury (meaning money that is not theirs as about 50% of the country pays no income tax) that's when things are lost. You don't need to have the guts to go door to door and demand someone give you their money or they'll go to jail. You can elect someone to do that for you. And in the the meantime, that representative can go and shake-down those taxpayers or corporations for protection money in the form of "contributons". Why on earth do you think those evil corporations fund those thieves and pay for their conventions? Because the drug companies LOVE these guys so much they pay for skyboxes?
Just say you're a victim instead of the loser that you are and demand handouts. Then don't say thank you when you get them.
"do the most good"? Please.... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
what the hell are you talking about? I can't tell whether your being serious or facetious, let alone who the "victims" are. (poor people? People on the 40% bracket? )
I love this "...pay no income tax..." thing. Income tax is only about half of the federal revenue. Who's putting up the rest?
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page