Thursday, June 24, 2004

JudicialWatch: Supreme Court Ruling On Energy Task Force No Victory For Bush Administration

"The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should determine whether the federal open meetings law can be used to obtain records and information from the National Energy Policy Development Group (Energy Task Force), which Vice President Cheney chaired.
Judicial Watch brought its lawsuit against the Vice President and the Energy Task Force after being denied access to meetings and documents. The suit was filed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“open meetings” law) following a number of reports that lobbyists and energy company officials participated in the task force’s deliberations. A U.S. District Court ordered Vice President Cheney to respond to a request made by Judicial Watch for records of and information about Energy Task Force meetings held in 2001 or to assert executive privilege.
The Bush administration refused to comply with the District Court’s limited discovery order or to assert executive privilege, claiming that either requirement is unconstitutional. It asked the Supreme Court to rule that the separation of powers prohibits the courts and Congress from interfering with the executive branch. The high court rejected that argument, refusing to endorse the Bush administration’s view of executive privilege and power and sending the case to the appeals court. The administration did succeed in kicking the case down the road to the fall election season.
Under the law of the D.C. Court of Appeals, which upheld the constitutionality of the federal open meetings law in a case involving Hillary Clinton’s health care task force, the Bush administration should be bound to turn over documents from the Energy Task Force.
“In the end, we can’t imagine the court endorsing the Bush administration’s concept of unchecked executive secrecy and power, which is so truly at odds with a republican form of government,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home