Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney Lawsuit? What happened? Help!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:36 AM
Original message
Cheney Lawsuit? What happened? Help!
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 07:37 AM by DistressedAmerican
Does anyone know what ever became of the Cheney energy task force lawsuit. Last I heard about it was following the big conflict of interest duck hunting trip. I've been searching all morning and all I can find are articles on the hunting trip. Nothing on if this was or when it will be heard in court. I'd really like to know what's up with this one. Can anyone help?

Distressed American
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm



In case you are not familiar here's an old article from CNN on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/22/scalia.cheney.trip/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
justiceischeap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Is this what you're referring to?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1270.shtml

<snip>
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Complaint filed against NEPDG, Office of the Vice President, for compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (FACA), and the Freedom of Information Act.
</snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That's exactly what I was looking for
Thank you very much. I'll give the documents a read and get back with some comments. Awesome link!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Looks like Judicial watch beat them on round one
The case was not thrown out and by my reading additional motions were ordered and the court ruled that several fegeral agencies must provide documents in thwe case. I can't find if anything has come down since this ruling. Are they reviewing the additional documents ordered provided for further action?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. It comes down to
they made Hillary's health care task force disclose documents, so turn about is fair play. Of course, I realize that this is wishful thinking, there are two sets of rules defined by party loyalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Seems fair to me
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 08:14 AM by DistressedAmerican
The system is set up on legal precedents. That sounds like a good one to follow. Good news is that they seem to have required 5 or 6 federal agencies to turn over their docs. Wish I knew what was in them. I'm sure the legal watch folks ar following up but, it is unclear from their site.

Nice Land of the Lost Sleezak (sp?)! Bipedal humanoid lizards scare me. That's why I watch less C-Span than I really should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sleestak
Or as Chakaa would say Sareesataka. All three seasons on DVD. I'm stoked, and they're my daughter's favorite thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. Finally found something
From CNN (I know they are the enemy):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/05/dean.cheney/index.htm...

(snip)
(FindLaw) -- On June 24, in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court gave Vice President Dick Cheney only a partial victory in the suit that seeks to learn how his National Energy Policy Development Group developed its recommendations.

The plaintiffs in the suit suspect that -- and want to find out whether -- there was extensive involvement and improper influence by private industry in what was supposed to be a government group. They note that the Group's recommendations had a decidedly pro-energy slant.

Cheney wanted the suit to be dismissed. Instead, the court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for further adjudication.

This case is laden with important implications. That is still true. Indeed, the Supreme Court may have avoided an ultimate decision in the case in part because of the political reverberations that would doubtless have resulted from their examining the separation of powers issues (read: the secrecy powers of the presidency) in an election year.

Scalia sides with Cheney, as expected

This case received a great deal of press attention because Justice Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself from it, despite his duck-hunting trip with Cheney. And unsurprisingly, Scalia did indeed side with Cheney in the case.

But rather than write an opinion, Scalia joined a brief dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas that would have resolved the matter in Cheney's favor -- and resolved it on the merits, going into the constitutional issues involved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
8. I believe it was dismissed, if you mean the Judicial Watch one.
The GAO thing fell apart too, I believe, though I forget exactly what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Really?
Wow, that's disappointing.

I haven't found anything to that effect but, then again is't not the kind of event that they would issue a press release for. I have noticed that information on the case seems to stop following the decision discussed in my last post. Maybe that's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Actually, I"m pretty sure the GAO published all documents about it.
And they were up on the website. You should google for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justiceischeap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Unless I read it incorrectly on the Judicial Watch site
The GAO did throw out the case but I think Judicial Watch is still pursuing it. I haven't looked at the timeline but here's the link about the GAO throwing it out.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3140.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. That's a ray of sunshine
in the otherwise sad news. Go legal watch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. GAO case and Sierra Club case are different
The GAO suit was dismissed on grounds of separation of powers -- the GAO, as an arm of the legislative branch, is constrained from interfering with the executive branch (by compelling disclosure of executive branch documents). The GAO decided not to appeal that dismissal.

The private parties bringing suit (the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch) were under no such disability, however. That case is still alive. Last June the Supreme Court sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. The next round will come in oral argument before the D.C. Circuit on January 27, 2005.

The Sierra Club has a chronology (updated as of last month) at <http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/vie... > and a collection of key documents (the Supreme Court opinions, a transcript of the oral argument, etc.) at <http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/cheney_case />.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Great, Thanks!
That is really helpful. I wanted to follow up on the case on my site but had hit a bit of a research wall.
DA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC