Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jan 17, 2004.
now i'm curious as to the total number of guns owned by bush, his cabinet, cheney and the supreme court.
i suppose federal law prohibits keeping such stats, eh?
Buried in the middle of this story:
What are we to think about the Vice President and a Supreme Court justice being lavishly entertained by the owner of an oil services company?
it's delightful. ****ing delightful. it will certainly have absolutely no ****ing influence on scalia's already-made decision to allow his pal to keep the energy meeting notes private.
I was wondering what the Republican loyalists would have to say about this matter. Not a whole lot, I can see.
Can you imagine what would have been donw to say, Bill Clinton had he taken a bunch of trial lawyers fishing with him?
Seems to me, Clinton took quite a bit of guff for just attending the annual Renaissance Weekend in South Carolina.
any bets on how Scalia rules? No ???
I wonder if that's one of those places where they release a lot of prey so the hunter has a better chance. Cheney regulary goes to those.
when was cheney in iraq?
I wonder if, while hunting in the backwoods, they came across a disturbing hillbilly uttering creepy phrases like "You sure do got a pretty face?"
that was in canada! ZING TWO!!!
Frankly, I think it was a foregone conclusion whether he goes duck hunting with Dick or not.
So where's the Republican contingent on these boards? Is this topic radioactive?
If they're already friends and hunting buddies from past years, any "influence" has already occurred. Years ago...I'm not sure I see anything more in a hunting trip than in whatever time-to-time visits they have in D.C.
To back up to the lawsuit, itself: I don't know enough about the specific circumstances of whatever meetings occurred that I can have an opinion. While public access is a Good Thing, the fact that folks from the energy companies sat in on discussions is also a Good Thing.
Example: When I worked on the Texas Coastal Zone Management Program--a state/federal land use management and environmental protection deal for the two layers of counties along the Gulf of Mexico, we had a "Citizens' Advisory Group". We met at least monthly.
We had people from the oil and petrochemical and aluminum companies. We had the then-head of Audubon, and the head of the Texas Environmental Coalition. Local elected officials. Wildlife biologists from National Marine Fisheries, USF&WS, and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission. Representatives from the farming and ranching world. And, navigation interests were represented.
So: When the issue was petrochemicals, we listened to the concerns of the folks from Exxon, e.g. Or Dow Chemical. Their needs and problems were considered as we inched toward policy decisions.
These meeting were all tape-recorded. The staff then reviewed the transcripts and worked toward a general consensus, without regard to any self-serving commentaries.
These meeting were not "locked door", but they were not really open to the public. About a year into the program, we began having public hearings at various locations along the coast, offering ideas about where we were headed, and open to any public input.
That background is why I'm dogmatic in my belief that any development of public policy that does not have input from the affected entities will turn out to be garbage.
from what i understand, the differences of the cheney meetings from yours are:
1. there were no representatives from environmental groups
2. it's a closely guarded secret who attended the meetings and what was discussed
So how do these energy meetings compare to your standard?
The consensus results as to policy should have been made public and some months allowed for public commentary. I don't know if legislation was called for, but that, too, should be done in the open with public sub-committee and/or committee hearings.
I'm not saying none of this was done. I may well have missed it. Or, it might have been "too boring" for much media coverage; I just don't know.
But I'm always in favor of open meetings (as much so as is feasible) and public input.
So, what you're saying is, even before the duck hunting junket, Cheney and Scalia were already too chummy for Scalia to hear a case with Cheney as the defendant while meeting the federal standard for impartiality?
You didn't miss it. It was hidden.
The latest development in this story: Not only did Cheney and Scalia attend the same duck hunting junket only three weeks after the Supreme Court decided to hear Cheney's case, Scalia was Cheney's guest, and they travelled to Louisiana together on Air Force Two. It seems that their main defense will be that the duck hunting was lousy that weekend.
So what happened to Bush's pledge to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? This reeks of it.
his words mean nothing. his actions tell all.
While it bothers me some that AF 2 was used for for a duck hunting trip, I gotta ask as to what are the options? Cheney wouldn't be allowed to travel except in a government vehicle, whether car, boat or airplane.
Next question: Does holding high elective office preclude vacations with activities of which one is fond?
IOW, where they went and how they got there is pretty much the only way Cheney could have gotten his duck hunt.
The only real issue is the effect of the friendship on Scalia's decision. I've already said my say about the Cheney/Scalia relationship...But anybody who believes you can "buy" a SCOTUS justice with a duck hunting trip is in serious need of a reality check.
I don't understand Cheney's reluctance to "open up" about the meetings. I just don't really believe they discussed bribe-type money or insider-trading in any meeting where records were kept!
As far as the Sierra Club's nose being out of joint about not being involved, my own experiences with them have left me underwhelmed by their views on a whole bunch of subjects. They're not as ignorant as PETA, but that's damning with faint praise...
I wonder how much Cheney or Scalia ended up out of pocket for this little trip. My guess is almost nothing.
My boss tells me to not let any of the construction guys I manage buy me anything, just as a general rule. If we need to go to lunch to talk things over, I pay and get reimbursed. Even if one of them offers to make it 'his treat' the rules dictate that I decline. The appearance of impartiality is very important to my boss because he sometimes has to make decisions that may go against one or more of the workers or subs that we use and he doesn't want anyone complaining about favoritism or bribery or anything like that. I manage to live by those rules, can't a SCJ do the same?
No, he said what you quoted back.