Yeah, I'm going to bitch about Cheney again. I caught the op-ed by Joan Lukey in the Washington Post's Opinion section yesterday (Sunday). I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but bear with me here. Presidents get "executive powers" and "executive privilege". Executive powers are the things the Constitution says the Prez can do. Executive privilege is what Presidents assert to keep secret what happens in meetings and stuff. When either Congress or someone wants to know what the Prez is doing, and the Prez doesn't want to tell, somebody sues the Prez. The Prez then goes to court, asserts "executive privilege" (or, "I don't want to tell you, and I think it have a real reason to not tell you"), gives over to the court the papers, and the court decides whether it's a valid use of executive privilege, or the Prez has to cough the stuff up to the public.
This administration did something else, entirely. They asserted "executive powers", meaning that what Cheney was doing (meeting with energy industry types behind close doors and crafting legislation - yeah, that three year old story is still lurking around) was part of the President's constitutional duties, and is not subject to review by anybody including the courts themselves. In other words, Cheney not only doesn't have to cough up the papers for the plaintiffs, but doesn't have to give them to the courts to examine them either. Hey, they aren't claiming "executive privilege", they're claiming "executive powers." The courts don't have any authority over them at all, basically, is what they are claiming. And the frigging Supreme Court bought this:
With barely a nod to precedent...the majority endorsed the administration's position on this point, pretty much lock, stock and barrel. If the White House wants to withhold information when members of the public seek it, the White House may simply do so. No claim of executive privilege is required. And if there is a process for judicial review in the absence of a privilege claim, I'm not seeing it.
So, in plain english, if anyone - from Judicial Watch to Amnesty International to the GAO to the Federal Courts to fucking Congress itself - wants information from the executive branch, the Prez doesn't have to provide it. And there is no review or appeal (unless someone wants to take it back to the same Supreme Court and try to get them to change their minds).
How could the Supreme Court buy this? Would someone, anyone, explain to me how this is at all beneficial to democracy? Or good in any way whatsoever?
Posted by baltar at July 5, 2004 09:26 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics