Appeals court rules fox can keep secret advice from foxes on security for hen house

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
You, and all 8 judges.

Again, you and all 8 judges are missing the point. Energy representatives (whose only interest is fattening their own wallets) were the only ones helping Cheney (an energy industry alumni himself) form an energy bill that taxpayers would be paying for. It has nothing to do with my politics; it has everything to do with the blatantly obvious conflict-of-interest that went into the formation of the energy bill that will be payed for by my and your tax dollars. It's going to be another corporate giveaway that will do little meaningful in the way of helping the US' energy problems.

You're the one who is missing the point, which is that this is a political issue. If you don't like the fact that Bush-Cheney ask the advice of certain people when crafting legislation then don't vote for them. If you don't like the fact that the executive branch can consult who it likes for advice then pass an amendment to the constitution that limits them in this regard. It is not for the judicial branch to invent a law or provision of the constitution outlawing currently lawful behavior in order to placate the executive branches' political opposition.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

please now note that at no point have I said there was a violation of the law.

Then why are you outraged? The Court ruled correctly. They didn't miss the point at all. Case Closed.

Learning how Cheney used the advice energy representatives to develope proposals for energy legislation helps Congress decide how much to take into consideration those proposals in crafting energy legislation and voting upon it.

Because the law suddenly changes what it is once it is found out who is actually behind it!

Get real!

Congress and the US American people have a right to know where legislation comes from, what "advice" it is based upon. Congress persons can't do the job we pay them for if they aren't given the relevant, necessary information. If Cheney had stood before the Senate and simply told them "Give the taxpayers' money to the energy industry." and nothing more, you're damn right there would be widespread demands for the meeting minutes of those secret meetings. But he didn't say it that way. Instead, he inflated that single sentence into a bunch of proposals he passed on to Congress. Obviously, they don't have to follow those proposals, but the reality of the matter is they are taking them to heart because Congress persons are already receiving millions of campaign donation dollars from the energy industry as it is. The proposals come straight from the campaign donors, both through the Vice President and through lobbyists urging Congress to support this legislation, and Congress is not about to ignore those proposals. The citizens of this country have the right to demand legislation that is smart and a good expenditure of our tax dollars.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sikander


You're the one who is missing the point, which is that this is a political issue. If you don't like the fact that Bush-Cheney ask the advice of certain people when crafting legislation then don't vote for them. If you don't like the fact that the executive branch can consult who it likes for advice then pass an amendment to the constitution that limits them in this regard. It is not for the judicial branch to invent a law or provision of the constitution outlawing currently lawful behavior in order to placate the executive branches' political opposition.

You should read more of the thread before responding...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress and the US American people have a right to know where legislation comes from, what "advice" it is based upon.

Who says? You? Don't make me laugh! Congress and the American people don't know where 90% of legislation comes from and what "advice" it is based on. Who the Hell really cares, except for pathetic people likes yourself, where the advice comes from?! The BILL is the thing that becomes law, NOT the advice. If the advice is so bad, then the bill is going to be bad as well. Once again, the BILL becomes law.

The citizens of this country have the right to demand legislation that is smart and a good expenditure of our tax dollars.

Sikander was 100% correct. You have the power of the ballot box. If you think this was so horrible, vote them out.

Furthermore, since you already think you know who gave the advice, what is the point in Cheney's revealing of it? So you have have the satisfaction of revealing trade secrets?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Congress and the US American people have a right to know where legislation comes from, what "advice" it is based upon.

Who says? You? Don't make me laugh! Congress and the American people don't know where 90% of legislation comes from and what "advice" it is based on. Who the Hell really cares, except for pathetic people likes yourself, where the advice comes from?! The BILL is the thing that becomes law, NOT the advice. If the advice is so bad, then the bill is going to be bad as well. Once again, the BILL becomes law.

The citizens of this country have the right to demand legislation that is smart and a good expenditure of our tax dollars.

Sikander was 100% correct. You have the power of the ballot box. If you think this was so horrible, vote them out.

Furthermore, since you already think you know who gave the advice, what is the point in Cheney's revealing of it? So you have have the satisfaction of revealing trade secrets?

All that noise, yet you've said nothing...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
All that noise, yet you've said nothing...

I've said the truth and made sense. More than I can say for you.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

Congress and the US American people have a right to know where legislation comes from, what "advice" it is based upon.

I don't find this in the constitution or the bill of rights. Can you show me where this "right" is spelled out, or should the courts just take your word for it and wing it?

Secondly, the executive does not write, vote on or propose legislation, though obviously friendly congressmen can do so if they choose. It does however have a longstanding and well-established right to seek advice from whomever it chooses and to have that advice be kept in confidence even to the extent that it this trumps congress' oversight role. Only when there is reason to believe that this executive privilege is being used to mask a conspiracy or other crime can this veil be lifted. See Watergate, Whitewater etc. for numerous examples of what constitutes executive privilege.

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

Congress persons can't do the job we pay them for if they aren't given the relevant, necessary information. If Cheney had stood before the Senate and simply told them "Give the taxpayers' money to the energy industry." and nothing more, you're damn right there would be widespread demands for the meeting minutes of those secret meetings. But he didn't say it that way. Instead, he inflated that single sentence into a bunch of proposals he passed on to Congress. Obviously, they don't have to follow those proposals, but the reality of the matter is they are taking them to heart because Congress persons are already receiving millions of campaign donation dollars from the energy industry as it is. The proposals come straight from the campaign donors, both through the Vice President and through lobbyists urging Congress to support this legislation, and Congress is not about to ignore those proposals. The citizens of this country have the right to demand legislation that is smart and a good expenditure of our tax dollars.

So you hate Cheney and special interests and don't want them writing our laws? Good for you, now get to work getting better people into office and better laws passed. You want the courts to do your political bidding in the absence of any legal or constitutional authority? Now your just fvcking up one branch in a vain bid to improve another. Would you be more comfortable living in a country where courts can just arbitrarily make whatver decisions they want?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Once again, I fail to see what is wrong with this opinion. Cheney did NOTHING against the law.

The Freedom of Information Act isn't about breaking the law. It's about ensuring that we citizens know what our government is doing behind closed doors. It's probably one of our most important laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
I don't find this in the constitution or the bill of rights. Can you show me where this "right" is spelled out, or should the courts just take your word for it and wing it?

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

This seems to give us the right.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sikander
I don't find this in the constitution or the bill of rights. Can you show me where this "right" is spelled out, or should the courts just take your word for it and wing it?

Please show me where in the USC is the White House's right to keep private these meeting minutes. No, really. I'd like to see the exact law, statue, rule or whatever. I really am curious as I'm not a law buff.

Secondly, the executive does not write, vote on or propose legislation, though obviously friendly congressmen can do so if they choose.

I don't know what planet you hail from, but on this one US Presidents have for a long time overtly provided initiatives for Congress to act upon. Obviously, it is up to Congress to write-up the legislation themselves; the White House can however continue to put in its two cents.

It does however have a longstanding and well-established right to seek advice from whomever it chooses and to have that advice be kept in confidence even to the extent that it this trumps congress' oversight role.

Again, please show me the relevant material since you're so keen on it.

Only when there is reason to believe that this executive privilege is being used to mask a conspiracy or other crime can this veil be lifted. See Watergate, Whitewater etc. for numerous examples of what constitutes executive privilege.

Yes, that may be part of why this lawsuit was brought forth. Partisan politics is likely another part. And, as che mentioned, the FoIA is a legitimate, legal action for people to engage in to try to ensure there isn't funny business going on behind closed doors. As I've already stated, I am not concerning myself with Cheney being a Republican or Congress being dominated by Republicans, I am concerning myself with the unseemlyness of the energy industry trying to help craft White House policies with the help of a very friendly former CEO who just happens to be the Vice President of the United States. As I've also already stated, I'd be just as bothered by the scenario of only environmentalists be confered with as they'd place unreasonable demands for change on the energy industry. So no, from my personal perspective, this is not a partisan issue on my part. Sorry, but it's a non-starter with me.

So you hate Cheney and special interests and don't want them writing our laws? Good for you, now get to work getting better people into office and better laws passed.

Yes, I hate Cheney and I vote. But, as I've already tried to make clear, it isn't about the individual players but the game being played itself that has my interest.

You want the courts to do your political bidding in the absence of any legal or constitutional authority? Now your just fvcking up one branch in a vain bid to improve another. Would you be more comfortable living in a country where courts can just arbitrarily make whatver decisions they want?

Oh God, not that "activist judges" tripe again...



...anyhoo, I've finished my 8-ish page final essay which is due today for my polysci class (despite perusing Apolyton the whole time ) and now I must be to bed. I have to turn it in in 6 hours, go to the bank so I can pay my bills, get gas, finish my UNLV transfer application, take my anthro final, and go to work. Sadly, I've used up all the time I had today to reinterpret ard rewrite standing law. I'll have to wait 'til tomorrow before continuing...

[Odin]

:VOMIT:

The US is not a democracy anymore, it has become a plutocracy ruled by big business and powerful intrests. The average joe is totally shut out of the iron triangle of Congress, bureaucrats, and special intrest groups (like Cheney's buddies) that create legislation; it's Pluralism Hell. We need PR and run-off elections to make the system more majoritarian so special intrests can't control the country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Freedom of Information Act isn't about breaking the law. It's about ensuring that we citizens know what our government is doing behind closed doors. It's probably one of our most important laws.

The Freedom of Information Act has NEVER been absolute and it doesn't cover confidential discussions the administration has with people in order to inform it of what to do.

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, Odin... this information doesn't provide anything useful anyways. Don't be stupidly knee-jerk like togglecaps...

[Odin]

Oh, and I think the presidency has become WAY too powerful. It needs to be cut down to size before it becomes an elective dictatorship.

[Whoha]

I'd say its more of a goofyocracy.