seems that they don't have to tell anyone who was one the panel
because the purpose of the lawsuit is to make them tell who was on the
panel. Like it matters anyway. It's an advisory panel for crying out
loud.
sigh. I do think I'll join the Sierra Club though, just because they
committed to slogging this out to the end. Somebody has to, it's just
a little much to let pass.
So this law applies to the Clintons but not to Dick Cheney apparently.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Marlon Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:26:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Fw: Breaking News - Supreme Court: Vice president doesn't
have to release energy task force records
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And it's essential that our government knows who the president is
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]
