Saturday, May 23, 2009

Obama (heart) Cheney

No, not about national security, about Valerie Plame. Remember Plame? She's a liar, whose attempt to collect damages from Bush Administration officials was rejected by the Federal District Court and Court of Appeals. Early this year, Plame and husband Joe Wilson sought Supreme Court review of the ruling.

Last Wednesday, the Obama Administration officially opposed further consideration of the case thus, says SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston, "adopting the same opposition arguments that were advanced by the Bush Administration." As the Washington Times reported:
"The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals," said the brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan [NOfP note: under consideration for Souter's seat], Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and Justice Department attorneys Mark B. Stern and Charles W. Scarborough. "Further review is unwarranted."

The Justice Department filing agreed with the lower courts that none of the Wilsons' several legal arguments gave an appropriate basis for such a lawsuit.
Plame's liberal pressure group lawyers assert "The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions." To coin a phrase, yes it can.

I said Plame/Wilson had no case long ago. So any possible "irritation" is outweighed by the justness of the Administration's position. Besides, don't bother me: I'm basking in the outrage from the online lefty zoo.


Assistant Village Idiot said...

You have noted, I imagine, that Plame's attorneys are making a political argument, not a legal one. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

Carl said...

When neither the facts nor law are on your side and your clients are liars, pound the media.