Obama administration opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's request for Supreme Court appeal

[Beacool]

Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's request for Supreme Court appeal in suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage

Submitted by crew on 20 May 2009

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.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/blog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/obama-plame-lawsuit-shoul_n_206036.html

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Primary Payback?

:sarcasm:

[Beacool]

6. Maybe...........

:shrug:

[aquart]

26. Well, I haven't seen any petty spitefulness since the election.

So I hope there's a better reason than that. But I don't like anything I can think of.

[babylonsister]

2. Yea, we know. Maybe the 20th time I've seen this?

But yo!

[Beacool]

4. I didn't see it here.

If I had, I wouldn't have posted the thread.

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

17. 'Search' on DU is a great resource, but who cares?

As a member, I do try to use it. But carry on!

[Cali_Democrat]

23. You mean you didn't even take the time to look around before posting an anti-Obama article ?

That is totally shocking. I would never expect a knee-jerk anti-Obama posting from you.

I could have sworn you were one of his biggest supporters.

[William769]

32. I find it strange that you did not coment on what thread thread is actually about.

Wait no I don't. How's your poms poms holding up?

[Cali_Democrat]

45. GOBAMA!!!!

[William769]

31. I did a advance search on this and this is the only thread I found.

If you have links to any other one's I would love to see them.

Oh wait it's you!

[BluegrassDem]

3. Joe Wilson was a totally ass to Obama

So this is not expected.

[Beacool]

5. Like PBS noted, payback time.

Nice to see that personal ego is more important than justice.

:eyes:

[Captain_Nemo]

12. Joe Wilson was a hero to write that OP-Ed piece in the NYTimes. An Anti-War hero. n/t

[Beacool]

14. It was a good piece.

I'm just sorry that the Wilsons' keep getting screwed from all sides.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

33. If Pres. Obama was the type to exercise "payback" Hillary would still be junior NY senator...

... and Vilsack would be a Big Agro lobbyist on K Street. Projection... thy name is Beacool.

[avaistheone1]

35. Very disappointing decision from the Obama administration.

[Old Hank]

7. The "payback" theory is not plausible

Because,
1) Defending Bush officials and bad Bush policies in terms of lawsuits has become a pattern, so this simply follows this pattern.

2) If Obama were the type of President who stooped as low as basing his decisions on personal vendettas, then he would not be worth supporting.

3) We can't say that Obama wanted "payback" against torture victims when he blocked their attempt to sue Boeing for helping the government in their rendition.

[Beacool]

9. I agree with point 1 and most of point 3,

Point 2, who knows? I don't personally know the man. I only see the facade that he presents to the public, just like all politicians. The real man is unknown to me since I have never met him.

[spag68]

8. Obama

Our high hopes have been dashed to the ground. What ever it was and however they did it, they have him now. He may have represented us for a few weeks, but once he kissed Lieberman I knew in my heart that great speaking skills without integrity do not make an FDR. I still hope I am proven wrong, but I doubt it.

[Beacool]

11. Obama is a superb politician.

Maybe I've been around politics long enough to see through the bull and become cynical. That's why I now only support those politicians I know personally. I don't campaign nor give money for anyone I have no dealings with, I want to know the person first before I commit my time and resources. I used to support any candidate with a "D" after their name, not anymore. Live and learn.

[defendandprotect]

18. Excellent point . .. and reminds me of . . .

an observation someone made about our losing the "back room" selections of
candidates . . .

That the real knowledge of Senators/Reps/Governors -- who had problems with what -
was in those back, smoke-filled rooms.

Evidently, someone with a zipper-problem like Clinton wouldn't have made it thru ---

I pretty much agree --

They also pointed out that ExxonMobil, Chase Bank, etc. don't let the public pick
their presidents -- !!!

[Beacool]

21. Both systems have their drawbacks.

Backroom deals that chose the party nominee were plagued with cronyism. On the other hand, the open way we now have allows people to be swayed by emotion and pretty speeches, without scratching the surface.

I don't know which is the perfect way for anyone else. I'm only saying that I no longer support any candidate just because he/she is a Democrat. Before they get my support I have to know the person.

[defendandprotect]

22. I got what you said . . .

and that's kind of a taboo position here at DU -- I'm sure you know.

I've frequently raised questions of Plan B --

and IRV voting to create other options.

Of course, the issue is small "d" democracy not big "D" Democratic Party --

Yet, I had ever wish that the Democratic Party would carry thru and make it this time!

A lot of hearts are being broken.

As for "back rooms," we have certainly gone completely off the tracks with leadership.

Of course, the coup on JFK was a successful attack on a "people's" government.

[firedupdem]

10. LOL! When I saw this posted twice earlier, I wondered where you

were.

[Beacool]

13. Out of town enjoying life.

:-)

[dionysus]

29. rofl.....

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

15. Sadly shocking . .

but par for the course now . . .

[stevenleser]

16. Two posters comments on the citizens for ethics blogs

An Issue of Legal Standing?
Submitted by Misha (not verified) on 20 May 2009 - 10:01pm.
I'm not familiar with the suit at issue, and I have no doubts at all that Cheney et al are highly culpable for what they did to Joe and Valerie Wilson. It may be, though, that all the Obama admin is saying is that a private citizen cannot sue for money damages an administrative action that caused a citizen some possible harm.

The issue of legal standing is simple. Say the gov't issues a new tax. You, Joe Citizen, usually cannot sue the gov't over a tax that you feel is unfair. The courts have held you may not have standing to sue, ie the legal right to sue.

Here, the Wilsons may simply, under the law, not have standing to sue. If they had standing, then the doors of the courts might be open to any number of suits by citizens against the gov't.

Again, sorry, I don;t know the issue, but it sounds like the Obama admin simply agrees with the lower court that the Wilsons don't have legal standing. That doesn't mean that Cheney shouldn't be put to the public rack for what he did to the Wilsons.

» reply
I agree
Submitted by Beastmaster (not verified) on 21 May 2009 - 12:02am.
I agree with your analysis. Looks like a pretty simple issue to me. Joe Wilson does not have standing to sue the government for civil damages in this particular instance. Moreover, it appears that he doesn't even have evidence of personal harm. This is constitutional law and civil procedure 101.

[firedupdem]

19. Thanks for this...

I want to read the legal reasons and not some personal vendetta crap.

[defendandprotect]

20. Or . . .

our government may be failing its responsibility to protect its covert members

of the CIA?

There are laws about there, right?

This was an "outing" of a CIA operative --

[ima_sinnic]

25. how is the outing of a CIA agent (a treasonous act) an "administrative action"?

the post is total BULLSHIT. the poster isn't even "familiar with the suit at issue." The OP appears to be some hack whose job it is to post disinformation that sounds "reasonable."

[QC]

28. Thank goodness someone came up with a clever rationalization.

Now how about that puppy!

[JeffR]

24. This chafes, painfully.

The Wilsons, and especially Valerie, got screwed completely by the country they served so faithfully. The JD's position on this is bullshit. Both these people deserve their day in court, and a Medal of Freedom each for good measure.

[Krashkopf]

27. That's not CHANGE . . .

that's more of the same! - Joe Biden

[dionysus]

30. cliched and stale.

[firedupdem]

41. Truly...lame

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

34. This case was exhaustively litigated at great taxpayer expense already by a special prosecutor.

What's the point of going to the SC? The Wilsons don't have a legal leg to stand on (see reply #16), which is why they were
turned down. They've lost every case they have brought to court so far. Unless the Wilsons have uncovered evidence that
wasn't exhibited before, there's no reason to waste the Court's time with what's become a personal vendetta.

[moodforaday]

36. One quick question

Were you this calm, this calculating and this condescending towards the Wilsons - and were you this unconcerned about the case - when you first heard about it? When you first found out what the Bush WH did to them?

[ClarkUSA]

37. Your "quick question" is couched in so much ad hominem fallacy as to render it unanswerable.

No doubt the Wilsons' lawyer is as bad at judging the virtue of continued litigation as you are at asking civil questions.

[moodforaday]

38. I don't think so.

There was nothing offensive in my question. The terms "cool" and "calculating" certainly aren't. The former is obvious in your post. The latter is clear in your point about "great taxpayer expense" and throughout the paragraph.

"Condescending" - you're free to take umbrage at that if you wish, but saying "there's no reason to waste the Court's time with what's become a personal vendetta" qualifies for the description. It is condescending to say they should not pursue justice because it costs taxpayer money (would you say that to anyone else who was ever wronged by the government?), and it is condescending to call their case a personal vendetta, where in fact it is one of the major scandals of the whole Bush presidency, especially that outing Plame may have led to people dying, and almost certainly led to weakening the US intelligence effort.

Finally, "unconcerned about the case" might only be offensive if it were a false accusation. Yet somehow it's hard to see any concern in what you wrote. Billions spent on the bailout, billions going for war, and the thing you seem mostly concerned about is the cost of the trial - to which the Wilsons are as entitled as anyone else who needs a recourse to the law.

But I retract my original question; it really doesn't matter. If you were outraged at first, but aren't anymore now, that speaks for itself. And if you never cared at all -

Well, really, there's no need to answer my question.

[ClarkUSA]

39. There you go again...

[moodforaday]

40. Remind me who's using

ad-hominem strategy again?

[ClarkUSA]

42. You need to consult a dictionary before you try using the term "ad hominem" in a sentence again.

I have said nothing that falls into that category. You, on the other hand, have... despite your rather convoluted denial.
Nonetheless, I hope this decision by the Obama administration will prompt the Wilsons to move on.

[moodforaday]

43. Spelling flames are weak.

And they satisfy the definition of an ad hominem argument. Thanks for playing.

[ClarkUSA]

44. I wasn't referring to your spelling. It is your denotation of "ad hominem" that is flawed.

However, since it is obvious that your illogic is severely skewed in self-favor, there's no further point in my attempting
rational discourse, though it is doubtful you were ever interested in civil dialogue to begin with.