Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plame Gets Her Day In Court

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:33 AM
Original message
Plame Gets Her Day In Court
WASHINGTON The legal fallout from the 2003 CIA leak scandal continues as lawyers seek dismissal of a lawsuit against members of the Bush administration.

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame contends the administration violated her constitutional rights by leaking her identity to reporters in 2003. She is demanding compensation from Vice President Dick Cheney; one of his former aides, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; White House political adviser Karl Rove; and former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage.

Their lawyers were scheduled to argue Thursday that a judge should throw out the case.

Plame's lawyers say the case could reveal more about the inner workings of the Bush White House than surfaced during Libby's monthlong perjury trial, but Thursday's arguments were to focus on technical matters of law. Cont

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070517/cia-l...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. The case should be thrown out
Everyone knows conservative republicans don't give a fuck about the constitution so how could they possibly violate one's constitutional liberties when they don't believe in the document? And, everyone knows that republicans fuck with American citizens lives because they are christian patriots who are only looking out for the good of the country.

On the other hand, I hope Valerie and her lawyers get incredibly medieval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. From the Wilson Support website
"On May 17, 2007, Judge John D. Bates will hear oral argument on the defendants' motions to dismiss Joe and Valerie Wilson's complaint against Bush administration officials, as well as the motion to dismiss filed by the United States. Defendants Cheney, Libby, Rove and Armitage have all claimed that they are entitled to immunity from suit, because when they put into place their scheme to deliberately retaliate against Joe Wilson by revealing Valerie Wilson's status as a covert CIA operative, the law was not clearly established that doing so violated the Wilsons' constitutional rights. They have also argued that each of the constitutional claims, brought under the First and Fifth Amendments, does not state a cognizable claim. The United States has argued that it should be substituted for the common law tort claims against the individual defendants for publicly disclosing private facts, because each of the defendants was acting within the scope of his employment when he revealed, or caused to be revealed, Valerie Wilson's status as a covert CIA operative. The court has given each side 60 minutes in which to present argument."


Help if you can.

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thanks For That
We'll see what we see but like the BOSS I hope the Wisons "get incredibly medieval" and use thumbscrews.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You're welcome.
I'd also like to mention any overage raised through Wilson Support will go to whistleblowers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. bio # 1
Judge John D. Bates
Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Sounds like the dancing supremes have put their stamp of approval
on him. I wonder if he'll dance for his masters like the supremes? It continually amazes me how easily and quickly these sanctimonious judges sell out the Constitution for their friends and masters. They are so cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Nice
I love DU research. I'm concerned about this judge with his background associations of Roberts & Rehnquist. Hopefully he'll come up to the judicial standard set by Judge Walton, who I was also worried about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Of course they're going to file a motion for dismissal, it happens all the time
The attorneys for someone being sued (respondent) often file motions for dismissal. It's legal. It's standard. It is nothing to be alarmed about. I personally believe that Joe and Valerie would not have had their attorneys file this suit nor would attorneys (of any crediblility) file suit if they believed their lawsuit lacked merit. It would set all of them up for public ridicule and would tarnish their reputations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. bio #2
Edited on Thu May-17-07 12:16 PM by higher class
Heading:Rulings Breed Victory for Cheney in Dog-Fight Over Task Force Records
Proving that a watchdog's bark is often worse than its bite, two federal courts have ruled that Vice President Richard Cheney does not have to turn over private energy task force meeting documents. At least not yet.

"On December 9, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Congress' watchdog, the General Accounting Office (GAO), led by Comptroller General David M. Walker, lacked standing to sue Vice President Dick Cheney for access to the records of the energy task force. In his ruling, Judge Bates stated that "here is no doubt here that the issues framed by the parties invoke core separation of powers questions at the heart of the relationship among the three branches of our government."

Judge Bates added that, in his assessment of whether the Comptroller General has asserted a sufficient injury to establish standing, "the Court must therefore be mindful that the standing inquiry should be 'especially rigorous' because reaching the merits of this dispute could require deciding whether an action taken by one of the other branches of government was unconstitutional."

Named to the bench by President Bush, the Judge is being attacked for his decision, with some arguing that he took the easy way out by deciding the case on the jurisdictional grounds of standing, rather than on the merits. Others are critical for what they see as a crushing loss for the public's right to know, coming at a time when Americans are demanding more accountability from their government and corporate leaders.

Putting politics on a short leash, Judge Bates' naysayers should pay close attention to the difficult constitutional issue that the Judge appropriately addresses, namely, "the restricted role of the Article III courts in our constitutional system of government." Rather than criticize the Judge, they should applaud him for his dogmatic approach and for exercising judicial restraint - something that is increasingly rare in this day of judicial activism."
snip
suggest reading the res.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to Latest News Index
Return to Other Noteworthy Cases Index (Center for Individual Freedom - cfif)
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/o...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. He surely cannot rule with any credibility
that the Wilsons have no sufficient injury or standing in this case. We shall see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You'd Think
But these days, it often seems like a ring toss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. Good luck to the Wilson's. I hope they get to proceed for the good
of their case and for all of us who love the country.
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 Mon Oct 23rd 2017, 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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