Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Funny guy, that Klayman.
-The Issues in the Case: FACA's Scope, and Permissible Discovery
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.
But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.
The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."
But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.
But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.
The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."
But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)
-Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, sought documents from the NEPDG beginning on April 19, 2001. JW was forced to file a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002. The documents, dated March 2001, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” (JW, 2003)
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html]
[IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html]
[IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
never mind the ridiculous and clearly bigoted claim that obama is a muslim, never mind the "no religious test" bit in the constitution, etc....
how on earth is the stupid ritual of having an elected official place a hand on a bible helped us in any way?
seriously? are we really supposed to believe that that's the all-important failsafe that keeps even a christian president from destroying the country?
well, of course, it didn't stop watergate or the teapot dome scandal anything else rotten that presidents have done in the past, every past president put his hand on a bible, i guess we know all that crap was just god's will, whereas in obama's case....
