Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest		 Greatest Threads
Greatest		 Lobby
Lobby		 Journals
Journals		 Search
Search		 Options
Options		 Help
Help		 Login
Login
Google

SCOTUS will not revive Plame's lawsuit

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.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Mon Jun-22-09 02:04 PM
Original message
SCOTUS will not revive Plame's lawsuit
Court will not revive Plame's lawsuit
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will not revive a lawsuit that former CIA operative Valerie Plame brought against former members of the Bush administration.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

A lower court last year threw out the lawsuit in which Plame and Wilson accused former Vice President Dick Cheney and several former high-ranking administration officials of revealing her identity to reporters in 2003. Plame and Wilson said that violated their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit named former presidential adviser Karl Rove; Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Plame and Wilson did not meet the legal standard for constitutional claims, in part because the lawsuit hinges on alleged violations of the Privacy Act — a law that does not cover the president or the vice president's offices.

Armitage was the original source for a 2003 newspaper column identifying Plame as a CIA officer. At the time, her husband was criticizing the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq and had become a thorn in the side of the White House. Rove also discussed Plame's employment with reporters.

The rest: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLX1w...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
   Replies to this thread
   Do they have any recourse now?  CaliforniaPeggy   Jun-22-09 02:05 PM   #1 
   Nope.  WilliamPitt   Jun-22-09 02:06 PM   #2 
   Never thought SCOTUS would hear it. MORE proof that the government  snappyturtle   Jun-22-09 02:07 PM   #3 
   So I guess outing a covert CIA agent during a time of war is OK?  AndyA   Jun-22-09 02:12 PM   #4 
   in case you were still curious about who is really in charge in the US  librechik   Jun-22-09 06:36 PM   #8 
   Is this another of their "our ruling is not to be used as precedence" decisions?  KansDem   Jun-22-09 02:19 PM   #5 
   What?  MA Redux   Jun-22-09 06:31 PM   #6 
   Is that the SCOTUS that appointed Bush pResident plus 2 Bushco appointees?  omega minimo   Jun-22-09 06:33 PM   #7 
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Mon Jun-22-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do they have any recourse now?
This is disgusting.

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Mon Jun-22-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nope.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (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 Mon Jun-22-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Never thought SCOTUS would hear it. MORE proof that the government
Edited on Mon Jun-22-09 02:08 PM by snappyturtle
is not 'for' the people.

edit: Now if Plame/Wilson were a corporation it probably would be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Mon Jun-22-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. So I guess outing a covert CIA agent during a time of war is OK?
It used to be treason, now it's OK, based on this decision. No harm, no foul, right?

If anyone finds the ethics and values that used to represent the United States of America, please return them to their rightful owners, the people of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Mon Jun-22-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. in case you were still curious about who is really in charge in the US
It's NOT the folks who would hesitate to out one of their own CIA agents because it's treason.

It's the folks who don't give a shit--or would do it just to avoid embarrassment.


Is the US still a genuine nation ruled by representatives of the people?

I say NO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (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 Mon Jun-22-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is this another of their "our ruling is not to be used as precedence" decisions?
As in Bush v. Gore?

Who bought them off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MA Redux (2 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 Mon Jun-22-09 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. What?
A belated Merry Fitzmas to you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-22-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. Is that the SCOTUS that appointed Bush pResident plus 2 Bushco appointees?
:thumbsdown:
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 Sun Nov 22nd 2009, 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC