SCOTUS urged not to hear Plame appeal

[BlueJessamine]

Source: Politico

Justice Department (through Solicitor General Elena Kagan) urges Supreme Court not to hear appeal from former CIA officer Valerie Plame, after lower courts threw out her lawsuit claiming damages from alleged scheme to invade her privacy by exposing her as a CIA employee. Plame’s exposure led to conviction of Cheney aide Lewis Libby on obstruction of justice charges.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/politico44/

[emulatorloo]

1. So how does Politico know this? Because they sure don't say how they do n/t

[No Elephants]

3. The way that the D of J urges a court to do anything is by filing a brief or making oral argument

before the Court. In either event, it's public information for anyone who cares to look it up.

[Patsy Stone]

7. This seems to be a pattern

I don't know the details of this specific instance yet, and I will certainly keep on paying attention and try to find out what this is about (I wish they posted a link to a filing), but from what I've seen so far, it's the same MO everytime...

Step 1) Something is leaked or published by a "spokesman", or our old friend "anonymous" (read: BFEE planted mole).

Step 2) The media (and, sadly, some on DU) go off half-cocked, screaming that this isn't change, and look at how he flip flopped, and, see, he's just like Bush after all.

Step 3) Obama, or a member of his cabinet/administration, comes out a day or two later to address the stories which have been circulating and explains the administration/Obama's position.

Step 4) The media mentions he's so smart to have done that and he said all the right things, completely forgetting that a day or two ago they were berating the President for something he didn't do. The Republicans (and the trolls), of course, will ignore what he said and continue with the lies.

It's going to happen tomorrow, watch. Obama will come out and speak on the state of national security, and Gitmo, and I imagine it won't be nearly as bad as everyone's made it out to be. In fact, when he's done, the general response is usually, "That makes perfect sense."

I wish we could all just take a day or two to digest things before taking the bait left by the BFEE and the complicit MSM and running with it.

[The Hope Mobile]

2. If this is true its probably because it would be another Bush v Gore situation

and would cause them to lose more credibility.

[No Elephants]

4. How is a lawsuit by Plame for invasion of her privacy anything like Bush v.

Gore?

The point here is that the D of J is siding with Bushco and against Plame by asking the SCOTUS not to hear Plame's appeal, not that the SCOTUS is trying to preserve its image. The SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the D of J's request (though I imagine the Court will agree with the Bushco/Obamadmin position.

[The Hope Mobile]

8. Because if they sided with Bushco on this case it would be blatantly obvious

that its a politically motivated decision lacking integrity/justice as was Bush v Gore. This would cause them to lose more credibility than they've already lost due to Bush v Gore. The whole concept of SCOTUS could be called into question. The potential is there.

[choie]

47. why do they have to "side" with Bushco.???

just let justice go forward - the Wilsons should have their day in court.

[The Hope Mobile]

48. I think you're missing what I'm saying. I totally agree that the Wilsons should

have their day and win.
I'm saying that SCOTUS is being urged (by the powers that be) not to hear the case because they probably will side with Bushco (considering the balance of the court now) and they (the powers that be) would rather let sleeping dogs lie than stir up more frustration with the legitimacy of the court. Those that know about Plame's case are mostly in favor of prosecuting those from Bushco who were involved. SCOTUS would be obviously biased again and lose credibility because their attempts at continuing to protect the BFEE would become more transparent.

[No Elephants]

51. The whole concept of the SCOTUS could be called into question? Do you think the

SCOTUS has EVER been totally objective?

People have known since the 18th Century that the world view of the Justices affects their votes in SCOTUS cases. Marbury v. Madison is a great example of a political decision by the SCOTUS. So were all the Commerce Clause cases during FDR's day. So was Bush v. Gore. That is not breaking news that is going to bring down the SCOTUS.

To the contrary, breaking news occurs only when a Justice surprises the President who appointed him. Chief Justice Earl Warren's equal rights decisions were an unpleasant surprise to Eisenhower, who called appointing Warren the biggest mistake of his 8 years as President. The independence of Justice O'Connor and, even more, Justice Souter, were also unpleasant surprises to the Republicans.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Let's all take a moment to thank Senator Reid who couldn't find his spine to organize a filibuster

against the Alito confirmation but is MORE AFRAID of "enemy combatants" than the USA's murderers, hit men and serial killers in Super-Max prisons on American soil?

Congrats Harry, you never cease to disappoint thoughtfully INTELLIGENT democratic human beings. :eyes:

[russian33]

6. "alleged scheme to invade her privacy by exposing her as a CIA employee"

that's cute...

[Captain Hilts]

9. This IS a Big Deal. Our ability to follow the movement of int'l weapons trade was compromised for

petty political reasons.

I'm very upset.

[BlueJessamine]

10. Bloomberg: Obama Lawyers Urge Rejection of Leak Suit Against Cheney, Rove

article:

By Greg Stohr

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to revive a lawsuit accusing former Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in the George W. Bush White House of illegally revealing the identity of a CIA agent.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the government’s top courtroom lawyer, told the justices in a legal filing today that a federal appeals court was right to dismiss the suit by former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The suit also names former White House political adviser Karl Rove and former Cheney aide I. Lewis Libby.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBANfIYr6RBY&refer=home-----------------

No press release @ DOJ website.

[BlueJessamine]

11. CREW ISSUES STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERING THE DISMISSAL

CREW ISSUES STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE WILSONS’ LAWSUIT


http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39738

20 May 2009 // Washington, D.C.

– Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) learned that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights. Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views. In fact, the Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him. This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW and one of the Wilsons’ attorneys, said, “We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson. The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions.”

[Cass]

12. WTF. If there is anyone who deserves to have a case heard it is Valerie Plame.

This really pisses me off.

[DemReadingDU]

13. me too

[Emillereid]

14. Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's request for Supreme Court appeal in suit against Chene

Source: CREW


Submitted by crew on 20 May 2009 - 4:15pm.

CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views.

In fact, the Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him. This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW and one of the Wilsons’ attorneys, said:

We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson. The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions.

Read more: http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39740

---

ENOUGH -- of this Bush-like bullshit! ENOUGH!

[lamp_shade]

15. I'll wait for the full story. I've learned to be smart about these things.

[Dragonfli]

17. It is not always smart to bury your head in the sand.

But I understand. Years ago I suffered hero worship for Bill Clinton.

I waited for the whole story until we already had deregulation, welfare "reform", and "free" trade.
You will find out too late that one should always question one's leaders and get yer heart broken.

Lord knows I once did the same thing.

[lamp_shade]

22. Agreed. Nor is it to smart to shoot from the hip, as I'm sure you've observed here

many, many times over the years. I've learned to not make judgments until I've heard all sides. Saves a lot of "egg on the face" as I'm sure you agree.

[Dragonfli]

24. Actually I do agree, I simply already heard the anti-Plame rhetoric so I feel I heard both sides.

If you need clarification for yourself I can certainly understand that.
Do your own research and get back to me in the case that I missed something.

:hi:

[Mari333]

26. Its a big club

and they dont tattletale on each other or hold their colleagues accountable . 2 right wing parties.

we, the people, are not invited to join.

[Dragonfli]

31. Oh - I learned that lesson years ago

I only have myself to blame for believing for a while that this time it might be different.
I guess we needed change so bad that I allowed myself to be open one more time.
I assure you it will not happen again.

[Mari333]

38. yeah. sigh. nt

[alarimer]

43. This is what corporate government buys you.

I am reading a book about FDR right now. Obama is certainly no FDR (and neither was Clinton). The Democratic Party also used to be a LIBERAL party. It makes me sad really, how corporate cash has completely corrupted everyone. No politician is to be trusted.

[lamp_shade]

33. "Both" sides? There are only two sides? You need to do a little research.

[Dragonfli]

35. Yes - the side being sued and the side suing.

I understand the need to discredit Wilson was very important to the side being sued for outing a CIA agent to claim nepotism on his/her part.

I also understand why they would sue over the actions taken against them. I happen to agree with them as breaking the law and endangering an agent and her entire network for political reasons is crossing any line you wish to name.

How many sides usually appear before court? Aren't there two tables in front of the judge for a reason? (or are there several dozen sides in a court case?)

[snowdays]

23. FULL STORY IS THAT OBAMA AGREES WITH BUSH --ONCE AGAIN!!

[Imagevision]

41. Just another example of a pathetic, spineless politician. Obama, What does he stand for? Anything?

Does he have any principles? Any guts? He should be called "cave in obama" because that is all he does. I supported and voted for Obama.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. harmed him? It was like a witch hunt!

the present administration seem to be leaned on by someone?

[tomm2thumbs]

18. timing is everything

[Libertas1776]

19. Its official!

Obama is a plant by the previous administration :banghead:
Seriously, what the HELL is going on here?

[MetaTrope]

28. Surprised?

After all the newspapers and TV channels that had been busy planting halos over the head of Bush through his time in office, transplanted them to Obama for his campaign?

[truthisfreedom]

20. I'll reserve judgement as well.

Give him some time to prove that he's not on our side.

[depakid]

21. The DOJ has given us no reason whatsoever to be optimistic

Probably the biggest single disappointment -to the point of travesty, in the administration to date.

Which is odd, considering that Obama once taught constitutional law.

[Bluebear]

37. How will time make up for this action re: Plame, just curious?

[Garbo 2004]

25. This administration may be covering its own 'immunity' from civil suits.

Would have to see whatever was filed by Gov't to see legal reasoning. May be less about protecting Bushco and more about preserving what they see as their status in regards to civil suits. So far this Admin/DOJ appears to like the idea of "sovereign immunity" at least based on previous Obama DOJ court filings.

I can understand CREW/Wilsons wanting to take this case forward of course. But even if it got heard by the SCOTUS, what outcome do they really expect from this SCOTUS as currently constituted? I'd doubt lower court's ruling would be overturned and would be concerned that this court would issue another awful precedential decision.

[lamp_shade]

30. Something to certainly think about. Another poster had a similar thought...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5691435&mesg_id=5691539

[Garbo 2004]

34. The Wilson's case is a civil suit. Filed in Fed Court due to DC jurisdiction. That poster doesn't

appear to realize that the case already is a civil suit and there is no separate "civil court" in which to file it.

[Iowa]

27. Another in a long list of breathtaking sell-outs. It never ends. nt

[Stand and Fight]

29. Change...

My black ass. :wtf:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

32. OK, I get it

CIA officials that tortured in our name don't get prosecuted.

The Bush administration, who revealed a NOC CIA officials cover, and likely caused great harm or death to CIA people working with her, caused no harm to her or her family.

So says the Obama administration.




This is becoming nauseating.

[Raksha]

36. Okay, this is the last straw! Whether Obama is a willing or unwilling pawn of the Bush/Cheney mafia

is up for grabs, and it's not something I'm going to agonize about. I can't read his mind. Because I like him, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's an unwilling pawn, and that his arm is being twisted behind the scenes. But it doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters now is that Obama *IS* a pawn of the Bush mafia. Why I don't know, but he is. In EVERY single context so far, he has done nothing to restrain their shameless greed and imperialism and abuse of power, and everything to cover it up, facilitate it and even advance it.

I have learned to discount the words of politicians and their mouthpieces and look only at their ACTIONS. And I get ONE consistent message from Obama's actions: the Empire is still in control, and its fascist agenda is still going forward.

[Lilith Velkor]

42. Man, this just keeps getting better and better, don't it?

:hurts:

[cosmicone]

44. More and more I am finding myself saying ..

"Change my Ass."

[Vidar]

39. Obama & the democrats miss another chance to do the right thing.

[Imagevision]

40. Obama! WTF!?! - I wouldn't have believed this if I didn't read it for myself!

[Badgerman]

45. Obama is proving to be a STAUNCH believer in max Executive Branch powers.

This is NOT a good thing. Our checks and balances work if, and only if, the relative powers of the three branches are nearly equal. It turns out that our Constitutional scholar president falls way out on the fringes of how much power the Executive Branch should have and excercise. In effect such thinking is the foundation of the theory that the very best government is by benevolent dictatorship. I am not blowing smoke on this, there is a long history of discussion on this, and how to implement such a thing under a democratic republic.

[snowdays]

46. Bush grabed the powers, Now Pres. Obama will KEEP & USE them.

[Zhade]

49. Boy, you're not kidding. Obama's lost my vote for 2012.

NT!

[Haole Girl]

50. There was a time, in our country, when people who exposed our CIA agents...

were tried for treason. All of them.

People died because Plame was outed. Plain and simple. Who knows how many. Trust was eroded, if not lost, in many countries. Our national security was (and is) put at risk because of it.

It's very far reaching... all for revenge over a stupid book.

:grr:

[No Elephants]

52. Yes, but Cheney was responsible and, as it turns out, Bush had given

Cheney authority to de-classify info whenever and whyever Cheney felt like it.

We are all looking only forward. Therefore, our sordid history is all behind us now. Shhhhh. Move on.