BREAKING: Judge Dismisses Plame Civil Suit Against White House
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jul 18, 2007 2:08pm
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
UPDATE: TP reports that Judge Bates is the same judge that dismissed the suit over Cheney's energy task force meetings. "Activist judge", anyone?
UPDATE #2: C&Ler JR (one of my legal eagles) just sent this email to me: Although it will ultimately be unsuccessful, why not now demand that Congress pass a law that will give Plame the right to pursue her case in court?
The Republican Congress did essentially the same thing regarding Terry Schiavo, remember? Of course Bush would not sign such a bill it but it will be further evidence for historians to write just how corrupt a president he was/is.
UPDATE #3 Melanie Sloan, of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Wilsons' legal counsel has issued a statement you can read below the fold.
MELANIE SLOAN, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JOE AND VALERIE WILSON, RESPONDS TO DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SUIT
Washington, DC -- Earlier today, District of Columbia District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed Joe and Valerie Wilsons' civil suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential aide Karl Rove, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage. While Judge Bates recognized that the Wilsons' claims "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he dismissed their suit on a threshold legal issue: that there is no constitutional remedy available to them.
While the Wilsons' lawyers are reviewing the decision, they anticipate filing an appeal. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW"), one of the Wilsons' lawyers, said today, "While we are obviously very disappointed by today's decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan continued, "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends."
Login or Register to post comments.
I wonder who appointed him to the bench?!?
Why I'm I not surprised???
I wonder who appointed him to the bench?!?!?!
that settles it...
the white house is indeed above the law...
Bush's specially appointed judge dropped the case.
There's no justice, there's just us.
What else can they do? Appeal? Go through another jurisdiction? There must be something!
Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. Interesting.
Damn "activist judges" (Tm)!!!
Generally the case should be dismissed for official acts of members of the administration. BUT, where intentional torts are alleged, this ruling is bullshit.
Justice has gone the way of the Dodo!
Good night, America!
It's all over!
Bleh. Not that I couldn't see it coming, but still bad news.
OK, so now I'll step off-topic and say, if you need something else to occupy your mind, check out a project I've been working on for the Center for American Progress Action Fund: Clean My Ride.
If we want fewer Valerie Plames (and by that I mean, fewer Scooter Libbys, Ms. Plame is just fine) then alternative fuels are going to have to be a part of extricating the US from the Mideast, and that's what this project is all about.
Mathilda @ 8:
He also threw out the complaint regarding the Cheney energy task force.
Score card
Bush administrations points 3429
The American people 1
My God. Well. I guess this comes to us as no surprise.
Shell5960w Says:
What else can they do? Appeal? Go through another jurisdiction? There must be something!
Until you removed these murderers from office all there is left for you is to fear them...
Wake up!!!!
Martial Law next.
There is no justice, and the spineless Dems will continue to roll over.
The first line of his bio is all one needs to know: "Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001."
Shell5960w @ 7:
This will happen:
1. Move for reconsideration.
DENY
2. Appeal to the corresponding Circuit Court
IF they draw a Bushie panel - Affirmed (go to 3)
IF they draw a fair panel - Affirmed in part, but remanded for intentional torts (not constitutional claims, those will be tossed)
3. Petition for Writ of Certerori
If petition is granted (four justices must agree to hear the case), case will subsequently be tossed out by the conservatives on the bench.
But that's must me.
Huh? Really? I just don't understand!
eight years of investigation into White Water. Civil suits over Clinton's infidelity. The president of the United States in a depositions, under oath, about an affair.
Plame doesn't get her case heard because of jurisdiction?
I just don't understand.
Oh well, I guess I should just go out and buy an iPhone, eh?
And, "A federal judge denied a request from a California atheist who sought to block President Bush from participating in a prayer at his inauguration ceremony next week. The judge, John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that such a prayer would not harm the public interest in a manner requiring the court to intervene."
Fabulous.
Better run to Canada while you can...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Time is almost up.
He's also a FISA court judge allowing them to Spy on us. >:-(
In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Any lawyers reading this site, please explain whether this is the end of the line for Wilson and Plame or if there are other legal avenues still open for them to pursue their suit.
Welcome to New America where law-abiding Democrats are Terrorists and lawbreaking Republicans are Patriots!
The end is nearer than you think.
the only law is the laws that cheat the little man !!!! and i told you long ago this countrys not going to be taken away from these turds without armed rebellion ,
Now come on! It's bad enough Libby gets a "Get out jail free card" but this is insane.
I wonder if all of you are starting to see the real reality of the "CIA leak case" - that being it was just one huge CIA operation?
C'mon, don't you realize by now that EVERYBODY in the government is CIA?
That's the reason why the CIA's funding is off the books and their agents secret.
Silence Dogood @ 18:
Also, they can still sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act. And they should.
I hope Wilson's lawyer can come up with a plan B. This just can't be the end of this case. So would any case brought against bush or cheney in DC, have to go through this judge? If that's the case, we really are fu*ked.
Ya gotta give them credit, before you commit any crimes be sure you own the judges.
Dems are spineless!
Don't see the point in visiting this blog anymore if the American people lost.
In the words of Keith Olbermann: "Good night and good luck!"
For the Plame's sake, I hope that Karma is for real and that like Flynt said, "Paybacks a Bitch." I'm just sick of waiting for it to happen.
And this "Verizon also said it will appeal District Court Judge John D. Bates's Jan. 21 order that Verizon Internet Services must, under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), disclose the name of its customer to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The DMCA gives movie studios, record companies, software makers and other copyright owners the right to subpoena Internet service providers without getting a judge's approval. Bates's ruling, if it stands, gives record companies and copyright owners a powerful weapon to stop the illegal trading of copyrighted files that they say is eating away at their profit margins."
Huh? How can anyone issue a subpoena without a judge's approval?!?!
No wonder they appointed him to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Rusty Shackleford @ 28:
Not too familiar with the FTCA, but I'd imagine they should have brought it in the original claim. Wouldn't be surprised if they blew the SOLs on the FTCA too. Gotte be johnny on the spot when suing the gov.
Mr. Blade2 @ 22:
Of course they can, but it wont matter. Courts usually consider precedence above all else. This one's not going to be overturned.
Maybe we can move on now...
I quoted the wrong post
You guys dont get it!
This (criminal) Bush administration has been loading the judiciary with political hacks for seven years!
What did you expect? Oh yeahh... the Suprime Court will reverse it!
Wake up! Nobody with "ball" (excluding Al Gore and Michael Moore) has challenged this band of criminals for the last six years!
And if they do not get impeached, they will keep destroying our country, as they have already shredded the Constitution and beaten the professional Military to a pulp.
Wake up!
BS! I'm interested to read the legal dissection of this decision.
Mathilda @ 32:
This is part of the privatization of justice.
Stop it with the "Dems are spineless" meme.
They're not. They're complicit.
The government IS the CIA. This was one big CIA game, just as was the Monica affair.
Wes @ 21:
Good find.
We need to have a regular practice of checking out the .gov sites because these documents show what power they say they have and can be likend to death warrants for our civil rights.
sciguy @ 23:
I am not a lawyer, but I've got emails out to attorney friends of mine and I've been reassured that this is NOT the end of the line for Plame/Wilson. They can appeal it, they can re-file it as per the jurisdictional issues outlined by Bates, etc.
Might Not Be As Bad As It Appears
It sounds like the case, being dismissed for jurisdictional grounds, has been differed to another court. That may be why the judge refuse to comment on the constitutionality of this case. Lets see where the spin takes this action.
Joseph
Can she still sue the people involved themselves?
The only weapon left is ... IMPEACHMENT.
Once these televised hearing show to America about the criminal activities in the bush crime family administration, there will be overwhelming support to impeach bush, cheney, gonzo, etc.
In the next 18 months, there is still a lot more damage these clowns can cause in our democracy.
Well here's one fucked-up thing I found in the opinion. Part of the Wilsons' tort claim involves whether Cheney's conduct was within the scope of his duties as VP (that's a little simplified, but it's the gist). He can be liable for torts committed outside the scope.
So, you reckon that revealing the names of covert agents is within the scope of his VP duties? Well, gosh! Not when you put it that way!
So the court puts it another way: Cheney was merely "rebutting public criticism"!
As the judge says: "[T]here can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials." Opinion at 39.
Blowing cover of covert agent = rebutting public criticism.
As I said, fucked up.
Did a little checking on Judge John D. Bates....First, he was Ken Starr's right hand
atty. prosecuting(persucuiting) Bill and Hillary during the Whitewater fiasco(NOT guility).
He is the judge who passed down the ruling that Dick Cheney did not have to release the
identities of the individuals who attended the secret, behind closed door meetings of the
Energy Task Force, and he as, in 2006, appointed by S/C Justice Roberts to be his
special judge in matters relating to foreign relations survillance. Now tell me, was he
"hand-picked" to rule on the Plame/Wilson case or what???
Someone please define the reason this judge kicked it back. Did he feel his was the wrong court for this case or what?
Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don't wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
So, why not file a federal tort claim as the judge suggests?
Wow, it's true, we need to through out every political leader and all our judges and lawyers and just start fresh. I mean clearly if the outing of an undercover CIA agent is not worthy of being brought infront of a judge then that's it, it's over. I guess now we can officially say that America is no longer America, we might as well be called China, or maybe Cuba...that's what we can call ourselves now, The United States of Cuba, becuase we have the same system of justice as any communist country.
Weaseldog @ 38:
Attorneys can issue subpoenas w/o prior approval. Parties can get pre-signed subpoenas if they're pro per.
Since bush gave cheney the authority to declassify classified material, might cheney have declassified he name as a cia covert agent, thus making devulging her name no longer a crime?
On December 9, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Congress' watchdog, the General Accounting Office (GAO), led by Comptroller General David M. Walker, lacked standing to sue Vice President Dick Cheney for access to the records of the energy task force. In his ruling, Judge Bates stated that "[t]here is no doubt here that the issues framed by the parties invoke core separation of powers questions at the heart of the relationship among the three branches of our government."
I see a pattern here. Can the Wilsons sue Bob Novak?
Jeff @ 11:
it's been over for awhile now, at this point were just the frogs in the slow boiling water
EricD @ 43:
Yes. Then they'd move to dismiss on the same grounds (i.e., that they were acting in the official capacity).
I feel like I'm repeating myself...oops, I AM.
The CIA IS the government.
This was all a set-up, made-for-teevee show, designed to distract us from the true daily shenanigans that take place. This has had the same effect as did the Monica Lewinsky affair.
"I am shocked not."
-Borat
"Until you removed these murderers from office all there is left for you is to fear them…
Wake up!!!!"
That is a START, but even with Bush and Cheney gone, all these judges are still there. To say nothing of the Supreme Court, which will last decades. Do you know how long it would take (even if plausible) to get rid of most of them?
“I’m free to do what I want any old time” - Rolling Stones
Chimp Administration’s theme song.
Mr. Blade2 @ 14:
What was the "1"? I don't see it.
I suppose judges are "activist" only when they rule against the republics.
Un-frigging-believable!
We should have known. When we were hearing so much about activist judges, that was a Rove scam to keep attention away from what they were doing with "their" judges.
Get the broom. Sweep it under the rug
As Mellencamp says: "I fight authority authority always wins."
Silence Dogood --
Thank you. Not being a lawyer, I don't know these terms like "Writ of Certerori." Truly, thanks for the answer.
When you lose justice, what's next?
People now working for the CIA need to stand up and support Plame. This is more than disgusting.
Shows you there are laws and there are laws!!!
If I would work for the CIA, I would defiantly quit my job and today!
None of what I read specified whether they judge dismissed the suit with or without prejudice. With prejudice means it can't be raised again, except perhaps in appeal.
The problem partially is it was filed as civil suit, and if heard as a business law case she could only be set back to where she was, and only after proving a preponderance of evidence that she was directly harmed in some manner. The question is, how do you define her "harm".
But it's hard to sue public officials for acting within the scope of their job duties. However, if Plame case was heard, and she could convince the court that betraying CIA secrets is not within their job duties, methinks she would've won. So in effect the judge decided the case without the case ever being heard. The judge said those Plame was suing may have pursued an unsavory path, but were acting within their duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Since they work for chainey, that effectively refutes his claim not to be part of the Executive Branch. This also throws the ball into the Oval Office, and we all know there's no balling there.
Mr. Blade2 @ 14:
The score keepers went over the last few innings and declared we didnt score that point
If Valerie Plame can't get justice in her own country, I wonder how much justice a prisoner of war could get.
I thought Writs of Certiori were only for moving cases into an upper court. Wouldn't Plame have to file a Motion for Writ of Certiori with an accompanying Order? And even then wouldn't the upper court more than likely order the lower court to hear the case?
I haven't read the decision yet so this is more a general comment on jurisdictional issues. If the court is correct that it is without jurisdiction to hear the case (subject matter jurisdiction) then IT MUST DISMISS the case. It simply has no authority to hear it. Based on the post it looks like the claim must originate at an administrative level and then get appealed into the lower courts. Failure to have it heard first by the administrative panel deprives the court of the authority to hear it. It would be like trying to file your suit in the supreme court before it was heard at the trial and appellate levels. This is precisely why the judge would avoid commenting on the merits of the underlying claim, because it can likely be refiled in the proper forum.
I know that the president is immune from civil suits from events that occur during the time that the president is in office. Does anyone know if the courts have said anything about whether that immunity extends to other branches of the executive office, or is it just the president?
Also, it seems odd that the judge would not address any constitutional issues, as the proper venue for constitutional questions is in federal court. Although I haven't seen the opinion yet, not addressing the constitutional questions of this case would seem to be a shady way of keeping a case out of court. But, that being said, we should read the opinion first before we should read the opinion first before attacking this judge.
So, treason pays, does it?
This just made up my mind. I am leaving America and going to find some place that still works by the rule of law.
Dr. Acula @ 61:
What else happened this afternoon that makes you say that. I haven,t heard
Just read this on CNN site and made my comment there... suggest everybody go to MSM sites and express outrage there... lets show our outrage to the people who don't think this is such a bad thing.
In Bush's "America" the bad guys always win.
Shell5960w @ 7:
Doesn't matter where they go, Bush got rid of the judges that went by the law, and not by the Whitehouse.
Fuc*ing As*holes!!!!!!!!
OK, I am a cynic, but this is ridiculous. There is NO WAY the likes of Cheney, Kristol, etc, could undo this country in 6 years. You think they are smarter than Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc.?
This is karma for Joe Wilson coming out in support of Hillary.
Heh. Just kidding.
Despite what they might say on Faux news, this was not a judgment on the merits. The judge DID NOT rule that Libby et. al did nothing wrong, he only ruled that for technical reasons his court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Not necessarily smarter, just slier
pissed off patricia @ 65:
Martial Law
Nicole Belle @ 41:
Thank you Nicole. I don't have a lot of hope at this point, given all the time Bush has had to appoint judges to the Federal bench. But if there is any chance of bringing Cheney and Bush to justice on this case, I'm all for it.
RMHK @ 77:
It's time for us to accept the fact that as long this corrupt group is running things, right and wrong no longer matters. The talking heads will be on TV saying it was because there wasn't a crime. America as we once knew it died on 911 along with our Constitution.
This is why the Bush-Cheney regime is attempting to stack the courts with unqualified right wing ideologues like Miers and Alito. To thwart justice for the regime's criminal actions.
Anyone that thinks there's justice to be had in the judicial system is out of their minds. Sure, courts were originally designed to provide it. But have they ever, really?
Many in the legal system will advise you not to look to the (civil) courts for justice. They offer a decisions, and the trend has long favored the landed gentry. It's just much worse now than ever before, much like the distribution of wealth in the country. While the conservative rhetoric has long argued in the media against activist liberal judges, they've quietly been seating conservative judicial activists. It's an old rhetorical trick the public falls for over and over again.
I've seen it first hand, how a conservative judge can do legal gymnastics that would win envy from a circus performer, and just to render a decision that advances the conservative belief about tort and wealth. The trend is decidedly against the average citizen's interest. Ours is about to become a system where spouses and business partners deplete their retirements pursuing legal vendettas while the rich fight over who should get the lion's share of the spoils.
Americans bitchslapped left and right, left and right, left and right... how can you yankees tolerate such humiliation and disrespect? are you a bunch of ass-clowns?
Nothing should surprise anyone - GREAT CRIMES DEMAND EVEN GREATER CRIMINALITY!
They stole the 2000 election and the scope and brazenness of their criminality has been escalating ever since - after all, they cannot afford to let the truth or the will of the people to come out now.
Mathilda @ 32:
Stupid question, Mathilda, but where did you see this cited?
Shell5960w @ 79:
Hahahaha! Thanks, even I need to laugh once in a while.
I'll bet you over 50% of Americans couldn't even tell you who Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were.
The Prussian education system has served its purpose well here in the USofA.
It's all about the STALLING.
Anyone still deluding themselves that this is even remotely the country defined by the constitution?
Anyone still deluding themselves that judges are men and women of honor and would never do the bidding of these thugs?
Anyone still deluding themselves that the military would defend the constitution against these thugs?
Anyone still deluding themselves that these thugs will respect the law and peacefully surrender their offices in 2009?
myiq2xu @ 81:
So was this a jurisdictional or a venue issue?
Ruthless People @ 86:
And this is why a filibuster against Roberts and Alito was so important. Clinton and his minions were dragged into court and into depositions countless times over blow jobs and these assholes get away with treason. Nothing is shocking.
A true "loyal Bushie" at work here!
January 19, 2008 Bush pardons entire cabinet, all appointees and himself for any wrong doing they did or may have done or will do in the future.
And that's only if they willing leave office January 20, 2008
They may just sit there especially if a Democrat is elected.
myiq2xu @ 81:
Exactly. The right-wingers are going to try to spin this as some kind of vindication of Scooter, Dick, the other Dick, and Karl. It isn't. The judge DID NOT DECIDE THE MERITS.
Impeachment is not an option. Even if you got past the Dems. in congress, Chief Justice Roberts would preside over any senate trial, and that seals the deal. Sorry America, YOU LOSE! again! UGH! Thinking of becomming an illegal in mexico. At least they're honest about being republi... I mean corrupt.
I just looked briefly at the decision. The judge says they failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted for their constitutional claims. He sorta cloaks in a failure to properly plead but goes to great lenghts to explain why they would not be entitled to any damage recovery even if the claims proceeded. As to the tort claim, he also criticizes it as some length before saying the court is without jurisdiction. So, all in all, it;s pretty clear what this judge thinks and he is definitely sending a message. The link led only to the opinion which said a separate order of dismissal was being issued. I didn;t see if the ruling was with or without prejudice in the opinion so I assume we would need the text of the order for that.
Ruthless People @ 86:
No they're not "attempting" they are actually doing it. Harriet Miers basiclly tells the Congress to kiss her ass and they haven't held her in Contempt. It's time for the Congress to grow a set.
Thank God I'm an Atheist @ 2:
(sigh) I'm not surprised either.
Zio-Sheep @ 88:
I dont think you understand ... there are people here that are becoming richer than european princes - they dont want change and are doing all they can to prevent it.
I dont think you understand how many police there are in the US. I dont think you understand how invalid our elections are.
Plus and finally, a third of the US - thats a real percentage - are in fact fascists. If you call them a fascists, it will offend them - they are after all stupid. But they believe that government should serve business, people should server government and that the US should literally own the world as an empire. (They really do see themselves as the modern roman empire).
... do me a favor ... you change it.
JUDGE NAUGHT @ 99:
Although Roberts would preside over any impeachment hearing, it would be a vote of the Senate that would convict or not. That's why boosh and chinless would have to be impeached together. Because if boosh was tried first, and the Senate deadlocked, chinless would cast the tie breaker.
Silence Dogood Thanks. That makes sense; I know that attornies can subpoena witnesses (at least I think that they can).
Anyway, my legal knowledge is very limited, but it sounds to me like the judge is saying, among other things, that the plaintiffs must use the Federal Tort Claims Act, because the defendants were acting in their "scope of employment" and "so the United States is substituted as the sole defendant for the claim of public disclosure of private facts".
So, does this mean that even if Wilson and Plame win using this Federal Torts Claims Act thing, that we the taxpayers will end up paying for it in the end? Being the ones who pay for the United States and all?
JUDGE NAUGHT @ 99:
The president of Mexico opennly invited americans to simply come to mexico and they would be given legal status ... period.
Starting to look pretty good to me.
Read the judge's statement of facts. It completely contradicts the Faux News meme that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, that Wilson lied, etc. It also shows that although Armitage leaked first, to Woodward (who did nothing with the information,) Libby was the first to leak to several other reporters. It also confirms that Rove was involved in the leakage.
anon @ 106:
Why didn't the Democrats think it was a conflict of interest to appoint Gonzo as the AG since he was Bush's personal lawyer ? How many voted against him?
What next? What does this White House really do for "National Security"? Is every friend of this administration going to get a free ride? Valerie, don't let this stop you! L
It reads like a pretty reasonably decision, actually. The Wilsons went to court asking for a certain category of remedies for the alleged violation of their 1st and 5th Amendment rights, and also for remedies under federal tort law. The Court found that the Constitutional remedies are not available from a federal court where other, comprehensive statutory or common law systems are already in place for adjudicating their claims (and they are). The Court then ruled that the Wilsons should have exhausted their remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (i.e. before another set of tribunals or fora) before bringing an action in District Court. The Court deliberately refrained from making any statements on the merits of their grievances.
In the end, it's as if the Wilsons waited in line at the DMV with their forms filled out and were then told that they need to fill out other forms and join another line. That's all. If anything, it raises questions about the Wilsons' legal counsel -- not this judge or this decision.
ITMFA!
Bud @ 90 The link about Bates, Verizon and the RIAA is here, for what it's worth.
Is there a statute of limitations for the Wilsons to beat? Can they wait until we (Dems) appoint some judges that still believe in the law?
Having a major disappointment every freakin week is really getting to me. I can't even comprehend how the Iraqi civilians feel. Where did my country go?
clytemnestra @ 97:
Unfortunately, you're off by a year -- the election is November 2008; Busholini is supposed to leave office January 20, 2009!
DNS @ 111:
No it really isnt. If it were, it wouldnt have gotten to this stage. I cant arbitrarilly file a complaint with the supreme court for example. This was filed. This ruling appears to be a means of moving the wilsons case to the end of some line - but it is a judicial opinion.
Travesty
It's a FUCKING KANGAROO COURT!
ITMFA
Janet @ 114:
Dear Janet.
Unless you are over 136 years old, you never HAD a country. You've been merely a small cog in the big machine we call the Corporate States of America.
The Act of 1871 changed the United States code to reflect our newly-appointed status as a "federal corporation."
Thank you.
Surprise surprise...I can't beleive bush and cheney got away with a crime( my world is up side down now).
So, I guess the powerful can get away with murder, and everyone else has no course of redress. Me thinks democracy really is dead in this country. I encourage everyone to read an article on Common Dreams called It's Scalia Time by David Michael Green. It's long, but good. He says our long national nightmare is just beginning. These guys have pretty well succeeded now in stacking the courts with ultra conservative regressive judges who in a nutshell worship power and never side with the common man. Their position is that "the powerful in society should be even more powerful, and the little guy should be squeezed and squashed at every turn".
CNN just now......
Press Release from Cheney says he's happy with this outcome. Duh!!!
ysabddaden @ 94:
Jurisdiction. Judges rarely dismiss for lack of venue unless a more convenient venue would pick it up. Perhaps the venue of one or more of the defendant's domiciles--this case, Hell.
Anyone else think it might be time for a "Yeltsin" moment? I'm sure by even asking I could be in trouble... but if the commies have more justice than America, the clock has struck 13.
Orwell's Illegitimate Son @ 119:
Hi there Janet: Well, I for one, know you are not 136 years of age, tho I do recall within
last couple of weeks you did indicate you had become a great-grandmother. Hope you
and the little boy are doing well...Seems we need to sort of "cool it" on Plame/Wilson
situation until we get a good legal briefying/analysis of exactly what Judge Bates ruling
means and where do "they" go from here.
This asshat judge certainly has a history of being an asshat.
This Country is in deep shit.
The judges that are punting on these cases typically do so in the same way.
They find a technical reason to dismiss and then say, "Oh, about the giant massive mind-blowingly disturbing constitutional issues? Oh, those? I, uh, well, um... see ya!"
This is a psychological problem many conservatives have that is rooted with either Mommy or Daddy. They can't confront authority. And they can't confront... that. So they find rationalizations. In law, it becomes technical rulings that do not confront the wrongdoing.
So they can let off Mommy or Daddy, while not demonstratively doing something they know that is also wrong - which is not ruling on the wrongdoing.
I suppose the congressional investigation of the leak has all but dried up too? I didn't see anything beyond Valerie Plame's testimony before the committee. BTW, WTF does ITMFA mean? I've never figured it out.
Guys -- In litigation, it's never as simple as "my side didn't get what it wanted!" You have to understand all the elements of the process, at least in general outline, before you can make sense of a court granting a motion to dismiss.
The general outlines usually involve the following issues (and others, but let's keep it simple):
- Is this plaintiff allowed to come before this court? (standing -- things like citizenship, residence, age, etc.)
- Is the issue being raised something this court is allowed to rule on? (subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Has the plaintiff presented a claim that a defendant could understand and be able to respond to? (could lead to a dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- In a civil action, has the plaintiff demonstrated (even at a minimal level) that he/she has suffered some kind of harm? (damages - but also relates to standing, e.g. when a third party that was not itself harmed comes before a court to argue that someone else's interests have been harmed)
- Is the plaintiff seeking a remedy that falls within statutory scheme or that is available at common law? (this also relates to jurisdiction, i.e. everything else may be right but the plaintiff asks for a remedy that the court is not authorized to grant)
All of these elements, and more, have to be addressed -- and will be raised by effective counsel for the defendant -- before the merits are even considered.
Three more points: a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice, assuming the alleged jurisdictional defect can be cured. Secondly, we do not want to start impeaching judges just because we disagree with their rulings, no matter how egregiously bad they might be. Imagine what the Repugnants would do with that precedent if they ever got the majority again! Lastly, Justice Roberts would preside over an impeachment trial in the Senate but he would not have the authority to dismiss the case. We never discussed in law school whether he could make evidentiary rulings, so I'll have to pass on that question.
JUDGE NAUGHT @ 124:
You mean we should all drink a bottle of vodka? I'm in.
anon @ 93:
Not anymore. I fully expect to see nookular war with Iran start this year, the draft brought back, the military enlistment age dropped to 16, 15 or lower, the Third Ammendment of the Bill of Rights trashed(they have broken every one of the others, why not that too) Department of Family Services sent into the homes of everyone who is on any type of gov. programs, the Dept of Homeland (In)security making it mandatory for home snooping on anyone on SS or any other type of subsidy, full blown martial law, round up of all dissenters, Christians, Muslins, etc into concentration camps. Use your imagination and fill in the rest.
2 words: no surprise.
Valerie Plame Wilson served her country for 20 years under covert status, and her life was ruined because the Bushies hated how her husband proved them wrong. History will not be kind to this Administration, and I am gonna love every single second of it.
The Champ is out.
Orwell's Illegitimate Son @ 119:
That is incorrect, it didnt do that. It was a missinterpretation of a ruling that (later) did that - that is personhood.
are we even in uhmerica anymore? i'm beginning to see how the french came to storm the bastille.
Rusty Shackleford @ 131:
No. Don't you remember the tanks surrounding their parliament to keep out the rebels? Yeltsin stood on a tank and basically said go ahead, you can't kill us all! Gorbachov stepped down, and now lives at the Hoover Institute.
I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.
o/t..sorta
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html?1
we are so fucked
DNS (#111) Thank you for that comment. After reading and listening I have come to about the same decision. If this was the wrong court, why didn't their lawyer know that before now?
UPDATE #2: C&Ler JR (one of my legal eagles) just sent this email to me: Although it will ultimately be unsuccessful, why not now demand that Congress pass a law that will give Plame the right to pursue her case in court?
I am tired of being hit and not fighting back. I can no longer set by and just do nothing but complain. I wish C& L would organize reactions to some of this shit we comment on. I am sure we can create a serious voice.
Joseph
US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions
(15) "United States" means —
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
[Deleted. Fascistic theorizing-Sitemonitor]
Amerikkka!!! Fuck yeah!!!!
If Valerie Plame were brain dead, congress would get off it's butt and act fast as hell to protect her. Bush would even fly in during the middle of the night to help.
JUDGE NAUGHT @ 136:
Good point Judge Naught...but who, with any sense, would permit/allow/or accept
bush-lite to live in their neighborhood. Well, maybe he could go to Pittsburg, Kentucky
and find residency along side the dinasours in the Creation Musuem...you know, along
side man/woman who co-existed with the dinasours only 6,000 years ago...
Well ain't this just stunning... Right wing hack in a black robe appointed by a rightwing political hack rules in favor of a rightwing hack of an administration... Gee you could push me over with a feather on that one.......who'd a thunk it... Besides anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together...Sigh...Will this shit NEVER end??? JD
In other cases produced by this lawless administration, other judges have made strong rebuke to the administration, even when feeling forced to dismiss on legal grounds.
Bates does not do this. So it's not just as simple either as the legal issues. We are facing a constitutional crisis. What does Bates have to say about that?
Nothing?
What kind of news program plays pranks?
JUDGE NAUGHT @ 136:
If I'm going to do that, it will require vodka.
a person @ 148:
Oops wrong thread.
Login or Register to post comments.