bonking! Love the double standards.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:34:31 -0600, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmmm. The exemption might apply if everyone was a government employee but
> 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]
