The court has decided. The plaintiff just doesn't like the ruling. nm
Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-11-26
In Reply to: I need just one - - The Supreme Court
.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Supreme Court Ruling.
I almost fainted when I read ***Supreme Court Finds Bush Overstepped his Authority** in relation to the military tribunals. This being a very conservative court with 2 Bush appointees I have just felt that whatever was on the table would have a conservative outcome. I am shocked. What does anyone else think?
I guess our supreme court doesn't know what it is doing with regard to the BIRTH CERTIFICATE
shoulda allowed Harriet Meyers in there......
Ruling on Ohio voter fraud.....hmmmmm
http://thurbersthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/10/breaking-federal-court-says-ohio.html
So because Snopes says so it is truth. Why not have a judge look at it and make the ruling?
xx
No, gourdpainter...it's gonna be Obama ruling....make no mistake....
Obama and the democratic congress.
I think it's highly doubtful Hillary will pass muster to be SOS, since Bill has too many shady dealings with China and the Saudis, and who knows who else he has taken/is taking money from, and selling our national secrets to (or did, in the case of China with our military secrets).
As for Bush, don't know how you get him thrown in the equation, unless someone named Bush has been appointed....I'm working too much to pay close attention...
But, as I said, make no mistake. No matter who Obama appoints, it's gonna be him and his socialist/marxist agenda....Obama and his far left agenda to the max.....
I'm hiding for the next four years......
Well, I've decided not to
post on their precious board any more, even though they won't like it. They thrive on hatred and attacks. They've been baiting people all week with their constant, unrelentless, vicious attacks on liberals. When someone gives them a taste of their own medicine, they run to the monitor.
You know, the whole concept of "their" thinking the three of us is only one person is very interesting. A very intelligent person told me a long time ago that if someone accuses you of doing something, it's probably something they are themselves doing. Maybe all three of these "people" is really only just one person with a severe personality disorder. The more outlandish things I read that "they" write, the more I'm inclined to think that might be true. One thing for certain, there are some very sick people out there, and they probably deserve pity more than disdain. "They" certainly do have some startling, somewhat scary traits, and I kind of wish now that GT hadn't put her email address out there for some of these nuts to have access to. I hope they don't begin to stalk her, but hatred is a very strong emotion, and some of these "people" clearly don't seem to be very stable.
Like I said, I'm staying away from their board. It's much easier to breathe on this board, and the intellect is certainly better.
Decided, but if
I have been an ardent supporter of Senator Obama since February of this year. I have donated $25 a month to his campaign since then. First time in my life that I have felt that level of committment to a candidate for any office. If I were still undecided at this point, the thing that would sway me to vote for Obama would be the tone of his campaign. As in the primary, Senator Obama makes it very clear what his policies are. He is able to uplift his ideas without constantly talking in a negative manner about his oponent. He does not get personal in his attacking of his opponents' ideas and stances. His way of waging his campaign makes it possible for him and his opponent to come together and work for the benefit of our nation when all the politicking is over....as he and Senator Clinton are now doing. Senator McCain is so harsh and personal in his attacks on Obama. Senator McCain has said things that he knows are not true of Senator Obama; he has allowed Governor Palin to utter comments that would made it very difficult for them to work with a Congress and Senate that is composed of both Democrats and Republicans. I know that his back is to the wall, but he should be mindful (as it appears to me Senator Obama is mindful) that the end goal here is successfully governing our nation. Senator McCain's torched earth policy on the campaign trail would make it impossible for him to govern in cooperation with others. So, if I were still undecided at this point Senator Obama would have my vote because he is playing the election game with dignity, respect and the realization that whoever wins, we all still must be able to work together.
I've decided too
I've made my decision too but for different reasons. I believe nothing I read and only half of what I see. I decided on what I heard directly from the candidates own mouths. Palin is a simpering airhead in my opinion. I will drag my feet to the polls and cast my vote for Obama hoping that he will do less harm than McCain. I say no McCain/Palin. I think that once the new wears off Palin we'll see a lot of people who will agree with me. Surely the American people are more intelligent than to put someone in power that only knows that Russia is her neighbor.
I have decided to vote
for all the republicans I can. I've always been the type of person to look at all candidates in both parties and decide which is the better of the two. However, I'm voting straight republican this election. My grandma always told me that you never want the oval office and the congress controlled by the same party. I'm a middle of the road person and I don't want to go extreme left or extreme right so I think we need a little bit of both. So I will be voting for as many republicans as I can to try and keep the left side from totally taking over. We need some right sided people to help keep things in the middle of the road so things don't go extreme left.
I decided the same thing!
If we end up with O in the White House, we need all the Republicans we can to balance things out. I don't usually vote straight Republican, but I am this time around.
I decided to do some research
on the birth certificate. I believe any reasonable person can examine the birth certificate at this website and conclude that Obama's b/c is authentic. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Maybe you could stop trashing him until you see what he actually does and please....quit reading all those blogs that have not a shred of useful information in them. Learn to reason for yourself.....please!
P.S. Who decided he was the perfect one
to run for president anyhow? There were candidate s much more qualified than O that could have run away with the votes if they were "chosen" by the party...but they chose someone who was only a senator for what, less than 2 years? Why? I would love to know how the party choses their candidates to run for president. Something doesn't smell right here.
I agree. It was the TERRORISTS who decided...
...to attack on 9/11. Likewise, it will be the TERRORISTS who will decide when and how to attack again.
I don't believe this has anything to do with WHO the President is, so while Bush shouldn't take the blame, he also shouldn't claim the credit for what the TERRORISTS HAVEN'T done. It's the timetable of the TERRORISTS that controls what does or doesn't happen.
The Republicans felt that another terror attack would be helpful to McCain's campaign (they came out and said so). I don't recall any Democrat uttering anything so UGLY in regards to Obama.
Are you still here? I thought you decided to leave...sm
or are you already back again?
I decided to let it drop b/c it won't let me post sm
THE CUSS WORDS I WANTED TO ADDRESS TO THE IDIOTS. Thank you to everyone else who had kind words. I hope no one ever has to go through what I did.
The left has decided to make it about the teenager...
she is the one who is pregnant after all. It is each person's choice whether to take the high road or throw stones. If Sarah Palin's daughter had decided to have an abortion the left would have used that against her as well. Everyone knows that.
See...that is the problem here. The left thinks they know the common person, the "right," the middle class middle AMerica folks who have family values...anyone who thinks those kinds of people would attack a pregnant teenager in this fashion no matter what party her mother is in...does not know nor understand these people.
This perceived weapon that the left has picked up may well harm their candidate, because no matter how many times he cries foul, there are still his followers who want to go there. So we are left with two ways to view that. Either Obama is political posturing, does not believe what he said, and in the trenches is telling his people "sic her," or he is genuinely affronted by this and his followers are paying him no heed. Either way...it will reflect badly on his candidacy.
Guess that will be decided in the media circus
These links are not just guilt by association pieces like Rev Wright. They are containing words straight out of her mouth. Libs approach to research a little different than Christian Right.
Who gives a rip about local news in an already-decided state?
That's why the polls are NATIONAL polls, duh!
And I don't know what you're implying by your virus comment. Grow the he!! up already.
We've decided to sit back and watch
turn the forum back over to the tribal warriors. Our work is done here. For the record, he'll be raising taxes ON HIMSELF, for Pete's sake.
Has the country decided not to hold any more elections
Was 2008 the very last election? I thought every four years there is an election. I also thought, according to past elections, that people should not just assume someone will win. They assumed Gore would win and he didn't, they assumed Kerry would win and he did not. Hence I would not assume Obama will win a second term. If he turns out to be a good president and we still have elections in 4 years, and nothing happens between now and then, then and only then will he most likely be re-elected. But since the guy has not even been sworn in yet and made any major decisions I would not be so bold as to just go on like he's going to be in for eight years. There is that slight possibility that he could very well be a crappy president like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (especially with all the people he is picking for his cabinet). I know the country is ready for a change and GW hasn't been the best, but until a man serves in the office we don't know what kind of a president he will be.
Unless of course you have heard something that none of us have heard and there will never be any more elections in the future. I have heard and read that Obama is a socialist, and maybe we are heading toward the same thing Cuba faces. The leader just appoints himself to the office every time. So maybe that is what you are referring to.
I decided to stop posting on this issue,
because it's becoming a troll.
But Barack's mother decided to send her son, when he was 11
years old,back to Hawaii to her mother.
Since then Obama was educated in America.
How much did Barack Obama think about foreign policy before he decided to run...?
I would say...none. There is certainly no proof that he DID, that is why he chose Biden. So, if HE has to make a crucial decision that does not involve voting present or yelling at Michelle for spending $10,000 to send their kids to camp, or which Britney Spears designer to use for his next big speech...what's he gonna do? All I can say is, if he is elected, he better put Biden on speed dial or handcuff him to himself. You act as if your guy is ready!! And no one has to keel over for HIM to be in charge...he is in charge on day 1. Yeah, THAT IS scary!!
I don't know in what alternate universe you think Karl Rove is advising him. Karl Rove and John McCain detest each other. Have you not paid ANY attention these last few years??
Don't ya'll pay attention? The Popes (past and present) had already decided this.
...Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.
Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
Yeah, just heard today he decided to cut his vacation short to deal with the
huricaine. Sheesh.
Yes, it is interesting. I would be willing to see it go to court...
if we explore the dual citizenship/multi-citizenship of Obama at the same time. How about you?
Supreme Court
I think a huge issue people may not realize is that within the next president's term, the probability is that THREE to SIX of the Supreme Court justices will be retiring.
The next president will be able to place a significant number of justices, and they will be in place until they retire or die.
That makes the presidential race all the more important.
I, for one, don't want Obama stacking the deck, so to speak, with people who share his 'you're not alive until I SAY you're alive' view of life.
For me, this was the most profound part of the article:
"For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her."
I saw an interview with a young woman once who had survived abortion, though it did leave her with lifelong disabilities. She would not have been alive at all if it weren't for a nurse pulling her out of the trash. That's as sorry a state of affairs as I can imagine.
Even if it is court ordered
By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment. The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay. I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there. I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income. (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him). The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%. Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from. Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid.
Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support. Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system.
He did get it paid up about 2 years ago. Took him over 10 years to do so. He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.
I struggled for years with my kids on my own. We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs. There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job. But I made it. She can too. I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is. I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there. The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children. It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point.
Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days. They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table. Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care. I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations. I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.
Best of luck to you and your daughter.
It already is going to Supreme Court -
I hope this time it wins.
Nowadays, anything that comes before a court
and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs. Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it.
It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter. Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband? Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents? Or was it more than a little of both?
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm
In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.
Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man? Unless he has the same view of America.
That's right, ignore a court document....
denial, denial, denial. You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic. Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white, and resort to snide remarks when you cannot effectively debate. But there is no debate here...CBS on the one hand said she was covert, and filed a brief in court stating the opposite. They have a history of lying to suit their agenda. And you are right there with them. I know you are not ignorant...I know you know that a court document is not cooked. The only impression one can glean from that is that you know they are lying, but you don't care.
And how does that speak to character?
No court has recognized any imperative
cetificate of live birth which has been provided, recognized and accepted on numberous occasions.
1. Andy Martin (Hawaii) Petition 29414 - denied.
2. David Neal request (Ohio) - denied.
3. Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) - denied.
4. Steven Marquis (Washington) - denied.
5. Leo Donofrio (New Jersey) - denied.
6. Phillip Berg (Pennsylvania) - denied.
7. Rev Tom Terry (Georgia) - denied.
Courts don't agree with you. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. How many more times will it take to get this through your thick skulls?
Supreme court lost their
credibility in the Bush/Gore recount.
No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm
She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see.
The Supreme Court won't stop him for much longer.
Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.
Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time. Same with Scalia and Thomas.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86. This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone. Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment. If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations.
In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much. They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.
Not that even THAT would matter much. Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.
He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war. Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.
"...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross"
nm
Actually, it was the Ohio State Supreme court, not...
the Supreme Court of the United States. That was then appealed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the state supreme court ruling.
I guess that puts you and Sarah on about the same footing as far as the Supreme court?
Just asking.
It is still on the docket slated for a court date
--
At least she isnt fighting the court by refusing
nm
So you'd believe Michael Savage (of all people) over a court of law?
No offense, but using something that Michael Savage read isn't really proof of anything, but the fact that Michael Savage can form words and speak them.
There is a picture of the birth announcement (along with all kids of very level, logical information) here (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html).
But given the fact that (a) there was a birth announcement, (b) Obama has a valid birth certificate from the state of Hawaii (that I am SURE, if forged, would have been looked into by a number of people who have access to birth records in Hawaii), and (c) that a huge network of people would have had be a part of this vast conspiracy theory, from the moment Barack Obama was born, it's a pretty far-flung accusation and one that really just resembles clinging to insanity so as not to have to deal with a distasteful reality.
Please give us a link for the court's not agreeing...
The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm
on the case. They do not hear every case presented to them. They are very likely to send it back to the lower court if they think it is frivolous.
if it were a "Dead Horse" the Supreme Court ...sm
would not be still considering it further, which they are. Perhaps that should be your first dose of reality.
Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court
Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!
From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.
Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.
Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.
The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."
Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.
The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.
Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?
JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Here's the brief filed in court by several media agencies...including
Was Valerie Plame covert?What's curious is that lawyers representing 36 media organizations argued she wasn't in this amici curiae brief submitted to the US District Court.
(page ii) "In this case, there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate."
And further
(ppg 30,31) "Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent...She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington — not not stationed abroad-- for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."
And further
(pg 31) Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. "The United States has 'revealed' an intelligence relationship if it has disclosed information which names, or leads directly to the identification of...a covert agent." S. Rep. 97-201, at 23. An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication. If this information is accurate - another fact a court should explore - there is an absolute defense to prosecution. See 50 U.S.C. § 422(a).
And WHO was one of the media outlets who filed this brief? OMG, say it isn't so....CBS. The same ones who are now trotting Plame out to say she WAS covert.
What a crock, reveille. Really!!
Wrong! O was ordered by court to submit his vault
nm
|
