WP Editorials on SCOTUS Cheney ruling

[kskiska]

(snip)

While drafted in terms applicable mainly to the case before it, the opinion revealed a court now sympathetic to the White House's need to insulate itself from lawsuits. In 1997, the court ruled 9 to 0 that President Bill Clinton would not be unduly hampered by Paula Jones's lawsuit for sexual harassment he had allegedly committed while governor of Arkansas; yesterday, the court warned of "meritless claims against the executive branch."

The Jones case flowed in part from the court's landmark 1974 ruling that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to divulge his White House tapes to a Watergate special prosecutor, but in yesterday's opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy chided the D.C. Circuit for reading the Nixon case too broadly.

During Watergate, Kennedy wrote, an intrusion on internal White House deliberations was justified to produce information for a criminal case. While prosecutors are relatively limited in the charges they can file and evidence they can demand, Kennedy wrote, "there are no analogous checks in the civil discovery process here."

Given that fact, Kennedy wrote, the White House should not be forced by the prospect of revealing its internal deliberations to invoke executive privilege, as the D.C. Circuit had recommended it do.

His opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Scalia and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1988-2004Jun24.html

And another…

(snip)

The decision is a partial win for Mr. Cheney, who gets to keep the task force's records secret while litigation continues. But it also casts the courts in an odd light, for the rules appear to be suddenly different for the Bush administration than they were for its predecessor.

The Clinton administration was subjected in a range of cases to intrusive discovery that, it frequently complained, burdened executive confidences. The Supreme Court okayed personal sexual harassment litigation against the president with blithe disregard for its potential impact on the presidency. Now, by contrast, the high court bends over backward to emphasize, even at the risk of tension with its own precedents, the president's special needs in fighting off lawsuits. In this case, it goes so far as to allow an extraordinary appeal procedure to make sure those needs get accommodated. Ms. Clinton is entitled to wonder why the rules seem so unstable.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4033-2004Jun24.html

[amber dog democrat]

1. Well this will backfire if Kerry wins.

Its one less thing the GOP can use against a Democratic president.

[fairfaxvadem]

2. Can Kerry reverse all of Bush's EOs on papers??

Will Kerry be able to open up the presidential papers and all the rest by his OWN Executive Order??

I mean, for example, wasn't that the first thing Bush did was put the kabash on Poppy's papers? Could Kerry, next January, say "Yeah, here you go, here are all of the Bush papers."?

[amber dog democrat]

3. Why not?

I mean if its just an executive order then there is nothing for which the legislative or judicial branch needs to be consulted.

[fairfaxvadem]

4. well, that's basically what I thought.

Just didn't know if there was any "gentleman's agreement" for incoming Presidents, etc.

[amber dog democrat]

5. I think the gentleman's agreements are no longer in vogue.

They are only in effect as long as one side won't suscribe to an "ends justifies the means" mentality. If the football changes hands, watch out. They'll stop at nothing to get it back. For the GOP winning is everything.

[meow2u3]

11. "Why not?" is right

After all, Bush reversed many of Clinton's EO's with EO's of his own!

[tom_paine]

6. No, because Imperial Amerika is a lawless nation

So, when and if a Democratic Emperor is allowed to take the throne, the "laws" (which is really a term I can't utter without the giggles in this lawless and rouge and weak and slavish nation) will revert, as if by magic, to the Clinton Years.

Orwell was SOOOOOOOOOO right.

Live Free or Die. There is no other way.

[damnraddem]

9. No, no, no -- this won't apply to Kerry.

It only applies to Republicans. And maybe only to unelected administrations.

[damnraddem]

7. No Democratic president is above the law.

Any Republican fake president is.

[KoKo]

8. Glad to see WaPo bring this hypocracy to light! When I read the SCOTUS

decision I was shocked because I remembered Hillary having to divulge whom she met with. I thought, how can they do this when it's the very same issue! What's the difference between and Energy Task Force and a Health Care Task force?

The hypocracy is just disgusting. This court seems to be as full of itself as this whole administration. They have No SHAME over an Election they gave to a manical dictator, and now are covering up the dictator's crony's dirty deeds. :nuke: And in the case of the SCOTUS there's nothing we can do to get Judges responsible (5 out of 7) out.

[teryang]

10. This decision is clearly wrong- Mandamus

...is a writ reserved for compelling ministerial acts about which the government official involved has absolutely no discretion.

To say that a trial court is properly subject to mandamus in this case is just legally wrong. Trial courts have broad discretion in ordering limits on civil discovery. This is why the appellate court didn't issue the writ, it was completely inappropriate and a misuse of mandamus.

How the vice president's consultations with representatives of private industry are characterized as internal deliberations is another Orwellian stretch.

[struggle4progress]

12. The Bushista Court doesn't want Cheney hurt by disclosure before November.