Want a really clear indicator of how hypocritical the members of the United States Supreme Court have become? Compare this week's decision in the Sierra Club attempt to get the Vice President's Energy Task Force documents to the same court's decision that a sitting President could be sued during the Clinton/Paula Jones case.
This week, Justice Kennedy says that, "the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties," and that, "all courts should be mindful of the burdens imposed on the Executive Branch in any future proceedings." Those two statements are in direct contradiction to the Jones v. Clinton opinion, which said "If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency. As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time." The Jones v. Clinton case also stated that the Constution enshrines the role of the courts in countering the Executive Branch, saying that, "Of greater significance, petitioner errs by presuming that interactions between the Judicial Branch and theExecutive, even quite burdensome interactions, necessarily rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive's ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. "[O]ur . . . system imposes upon the Branches a degree of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence the absence of which `would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively.' " Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 381 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 121). As Madison explained, separation of powers does not mean that the branches "ought to have no partial agency in, or no controul over the acts of each other." The fact that a federal court's exercise of its traditional Article III jurisdiction may significantly burden the time and attention of the Chief Executive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Constitution." (thanks to Dennis Neiwert at Orcinus)
So here's the question: Why are Mr. Cheney's interactions with the energy robber barons protected, but Mr. Clinton's interactions with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky not? Could it be that Justice Antonin "How dare you question my integrity" Scalia gave his hunting buddy the benefit of the doubt, which he did not extend to Mr. Clinton? Is it just partisan politics (again)? Why the change?
I think maybe there's a justice that should be impeached along with Messrs. Bush and Cheney. After all, what was good for Mr. Clinton is certainly good enough for them.
Posted by Chris at June 25, 2004 02:04 PM