« Gallery Spam | Main | Mac Sliced Bread Friday »
June 25, 2004
Three Dead Branches
Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the civil court case demanding that Dick Cheney reveal the energy-industry leaders with whom he sat down to craft administration energy policy. Justices Scalia and Thomas would have gladly killed the case themselves, but it was instead returned to the federal court, thereby postponing any final outcome until after the election.
Who could argue that those who actually know the industries in question shouldn't have their expertise taken advantage of by those who craft government policy? But why shouldn't the people--who are not experts, yet whose interests will be affected by and whose taxes will fund said policy--be granted open access to the persons and issues under discussion?
Not for us to know, say Cheney, Bush, and the Supreme Court. (We can go fuck ourselves, too.) I guess we will learn, in time, when the results of various relaxations of pollution controls and public-land uses and merger/acquisition controls and ethical regulations make themselves known.
Unless you think they were hammering out ways to funnel profits into public housing, provide free power to Native American reservations, restore the Alaskan tundra and the Northwest forests, scale back greenhouse-gas emissions, advance tax payments to the Treasury to aid in the War on Terror, and impose stern economic pressure on oil-rich nations guilty of human-rights violations by refraining from mutually beneficial relationships. Maybe they were going to surprise us!
Either way, we'll just have to wait, because the Supreme Court sent it back down due to what they claim is the "paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation."
Indeed! And most vexatious would it likely have been! As vexatious as the litigation that resulted from their decision to let Clinton face charges for lying under oath about adultery? Perhaps, if not more so! And yet much more critical to the business of the Republic, don't you think?
Questions for readers (seriously, I'm asking):
What was the original subject of the investigation under which Ken Starr maneuvered Clinton under oath and into perjurious--yet extravagantly irrelevant--testimony about Monica Lewinsky?
How will the Supreme Court (or Dahlia Lithwick) describe the legal distinction between the case versus Cheney and the case versus Clinton? I mean, other than "Cheney is a Republican"?
Posted by pk at June 25, 2004 01:15 PM
Comments
What was the original subject of the investigation under which Ken Starr maneuvered Clinton under oath and into perjurious--yet extravagantly irrelevant--testimony about Monica Lewinsky?
It was Whitewater, wasn't it? Which went nowhere, as I recall.
Posted by: The One True b!X at June 27, 2004 08:15 PM
Yeah, but what WAS "Whitewater"? What was the crux of it supposed to be? And was there a whole bunch of other stuff swept up in it, in addition to whatever was supposed to be wrong with the land deal? None of it went anywhere, particularly; the McDougals (sp?) got ruined, and Starr managed to get Clinton under oath and lying about something else.
Posted by: pk at June 28, 2004 09:51 AM