knowing who everyone was is not essential information? Hmm.
Dana
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:15:33 -0600, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was just looking at the decision
>
> http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/cheney_case/
>
> and although I need a dictionary (mandamus?) hmm it looks as this is a
> procederal ducking of the issue (?)
>
> It does put the issue onto a back burner until after the election.
> Was also interested to see that Scalia dissented in part. Reserving
> judgement on whether he has been misjudged or is just smart :) I still
> think he should have recused himself.
>
> Dana
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:07:26 -0500
> Subject: Re: Fw: Breaking News - Supreme Court: Vice president doesn't
> have to release energy task force records
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Much as I want to see Cheney taken down, the ruling was 7-2. It's not
> like it was a very split vote that hinged on Scalia.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:43:20 -0600, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > outstanding.
> >
> > And of course he didn't recuse himself? Someone invited me to a Sierra
> > Club presentation on this court case. Their lawyer was sort of
> > expecting this. It's indefensible of course.... the entire
> > administration position rested on Nixon's doctrine of executive
> > privilege. But but but Nixon *lost.*
> >
> > Nor can you consider Ken Lay a member of the administration. Or can you :)
> >
> > Dana________________________________
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
