The Supreme Court has a different standard for Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Democrats have to face trial - Republicans get a pass! In the case of Dick Cheney the Supreme Court ruled:
Court won't order Cheney Papers Released!
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal district court judge who ordered records opened to the public had issued too broad a release of documents, without giving appropriate deference to the White House.
The president is not above the law, Kennedy wrote, but there is a "paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties."
He said "special considerations applicable to the president and the vice president suggest that the courts should be sensitive to requests by the government" in such special appeals.
But when Clinton was president they ruled differently saying that they didn't see a problem with Paula Jones bringing a bullshit lawsuit against the president. He had plenty of time to defend it back then. What a crock of shit this is!
Unanimous Supreme Court says there is no constitutional barrier to harassment suit against president
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 27 1997) -- A unanimous Supreme Court ruled today that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that bars Jones' lawsuit from proceeding against the president while he is still in office.
The court said, "Like every other citizen who properly invokes [court] jurisdiction, [Jones] has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims."
The court rejected Clinton's claims that lawsuits against presidents in office violate the separation of powers between the judicial branch and the executive branch.
Clinton's lawyers had also argued that lawsuits would interfere with presidents' official duties, and that permitting Jones' case to go forward would open the way to an avalanche of lawsuits against sitting presidents.
In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said, "We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious."
You see - when the president is a Democrat you get one set of rules - but when the president is a Republican the Supreme Court rules the opposite. And you have to consider the seriousness of the crime. Cheney was meeting with Oil Executives who were shutting electricity off to the entire west coast and planning a war with Iraq. Jones on the other hand had a much more seroius issue. That Clinton showd her his cock.
Jesus fucking Christ - the Moonies must be in control. Only if you lived in a CULT would something like this make sense!
no comment.
Posted by: undrgrnd at June 24, 2004 03:19 PMHey Marc!
[sarcasm]
You didn't get the memo?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html
Even the media whores can't cover this one up any more...
Or are you having pontifical memory lapses like the Catholic pope is these days?
http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000272.html
You being the head of the Church of Reality and all...
[/sarcasm]
Marc, again, you are right. What a bunch of political b.s. You can't get a BJ but, you can send hundreds to their death, invade a county that didn't do anything to us and let the perpetrators go free. BUT...getting a blow job brings out the big guns and we need to get to the bottom of White House SEX. Whoaaaaaaaa...like that is really important.
This pResident is the epitomy of idiocy. And they keep getting a free pass...get out of jail free card.
We certainly can't let the public know what these bastards are doing! They are too important and have sensative information. If they got a blow job once in a while, they might not be so hell-bent on ruining the lives of everyone else.
Wow. First of all, the Paula Jones case had nothing to do with Clinton getting a blow job. Allen, try to take your head out of your ass before you enter a discussion.
Secondly, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the case. They simply said that the people sued for too much information. If I wanted to arbitrarily accuse Mark of tax fraud with no proof at all, a court is not going to allow a lawsuit demanding to see all of his financial records for the past 20 years. If I make an accusation (like CONSPIRACY), then I must already have preliminary evidence and be sure beyond all reaonable doubt that I can find more to help me.
Because I'm in such a bad mood, I'm going to explain to Allen why he's a moron.
"This pResident is the epitomy of idiocy." It's epitome. And great work with the capitalization of the second letter of president. How can you call someone an idiot when you have two obvious errors in a 7 word sentence in which 4 of the words are articles, helping verbs, pronouns, and prepositions? You had 3 words (president, epitome, idiocy) to get right, and you fucked up two of them. You get an F.
And I didn't realize that "sensative" was a word.
So, before you come and here and insult anyone or try to have an opinion, I'd suggest you go buy a fucking dictionary (and an English language textbook, while you're at it) and turn to the part where it tells you to not be a fucking tool.
Posted by: Mance at June 25, 2004 09:07 AMAllen, How can a guy with your thought process call anyone an idiot. It was not about blowjobs, it was about perjury ... you idiot.
Posted by: X-FREEPER at June 25, 2004 09:14 AMwhy so much hatred? use your vocab to enlighten.not to scare.
Posted by: tony at June 25, 2004 10:17 AMI've been reading Perkel's Rantz for a few months now, and I have noticed the ferocity of Mance's, and other's, responses. Such anger and animosity. Do you hate yourself? I believe in the first amendment, and I read things that I don't agree on. One thing I don't do is go around calling people morons because I don't agree with them. Sometimes I agree with Perkel, at times I think he jumps the gun. I will offer a civilized rebuttal, if I feel so inclined. And Mance, you can borrow my dictionary if you want to. "I have too much of a life to return her multiple times". Return who multiple times?
Posted by: charlie chingas at June 25, 2004 11:59 AMNo, I don't hate myself, and I don't call people morons for disagreeing with me. I call people morons for mispelling words like epitome and sensitive. Read carefully next time.
Posted by: Mance at June 25, 2004 01:38 PMI must be a moron then for not reading more carefully. You must be Christian, since you is so quick to judge cuz sum phokes kant spel. Wait, you're a moron to for not using grammar korrectly... Anyhow, I don't have a much of a life, so I come here repeatedly and check if any new comments are entered. It's what I live for! Thanks for the outlet Perkel. you rock!
Posted by: charlie chingas at June 25, 2004 02:10 PMi gess u guz mus knot a gre wit da FCC an there, no thier, no wait...their beeleaf in know 1 uzin nazty linguaj.
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 04:45 PMWe can only hope Mance really gets his blood pressure up high enough to pop a vein. Sounds like he is close to it.
Maybe Mance is really Marc trying to keep the discussion alive.
Sure would hate to have Mance behind me on the freeway and do something wrong like go too slow or change lanes without signaling. He is a stickler for the rules! heehee
So, Mance's definition of a moron is someone who can't spell. How about someone that can't read a newspaper like the pResident in Chief? Any other brilliant ideas you may want to add to the definition of a moron? Or just spelling?
Such high standards you set...of course, that is part of being a neo-con. High standards when it comes to spelling...not reading or fairness or equality or lawful behavior. Wonderful! You must have lost an important spelling bee when young...what else could explain such rabid distaste?
After all the insults, "That Clinton showed her his cock." is way more important than potential problems with the energy task force. Yes...very understandable.
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 05:54 PM"Wow. First of all, the Paula Jones case had nothing to do with Clinton getting a blow job. Allen, try to take your head out of your ass before you enter a discussion.
Secondly, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the case. They simply said that the people sued for too much information. If I wanted to arbitrarily accuse Mark of tax fraud with no proof at all, a court is not going to allow a lawsuit demanding to see all of his financial records for the past 20 years. If I make an accusation (like CONSPIRACY), then I must already have preliminary evidence and be sure beyond all reaonable doubt that I can find more to help me."
I apologize for insulting you. Comment on those points, if you have a credible argument.
Posted by: Mance at June 25, 2004 06:18 PMJustice Scalia should have recused himself because he has a relationship with Cheney that is not professional. If you disagree with that, there is not much to talk about. Vice-President Cheney made recommendations as part of the energy task forch that were generally friendly to the industry and I think we can agree he is close to energy officials. We are not asking for 20 years worth of information but, fairly recent discussions and comments that impact our daily lives.
I applaud the Court for throwing it back but, think they are making a mistake in not allowing the revelation of facts. What are they afraid of?
One other point. There is no way the Supreme Court would through this back if there were not some "credible evidence". They would have killed it fair and square.
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 06:36 PMExcuse me all to hell....thrown. Not through
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 06:36 PMIt appears that Mr. Perkel is afraid of being proven wrong. I went back through several of the previous threads in which I had posted comments, wanting to look at the hold arguments. Lo and behold, many of my posts have been deleted--one, specifically, in which I made an itemized list of each and every surprise attack against America dating back the 1800s, which was posted under the story about the terrorist arrest in Ohio. Actually, I had several deleted from that thread--the proof is where someone responds to something I said, but there is no post of me saying anything.
It's happened on more recent threads, too. Apparently, Mark doesn't want any evidence of being proven so spectacularly incorrect that he deletes it when he thinks no one is looking. You're worse at cover-ups and lies than you allege our President it.
Posted by: Mance at June 25, 2004 07:39 PMOh dear. You sound a bit paranoid. Have you worked with PCs much? You know that your messages are stored on someones PC i.e. servers. PCs are notorious for losing data, shutting down and basically not conforming to any kind of logic.
I don't think you are being targeted for censure. Notice the number of posts on these issues...not that many. Don't think too highly of yourself and your opinions. This blog is quite small compared to some so don't get too upset. Write your blogs in word then copy and paste...that way you can save them until your own PC dies.
side note...his name is spelled Marc...not Mark.
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 08:13 PMone more side note...marc is a nobody. Bush is the president on the United States which makes cover ups just a little more important.
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 08:18 PMagain...excuse me all to hell! the president OF the United States.
Posted by: allen at June 25, 2004 08:19 PM Hi, how are you. Alright, firstly, you need hooked on phonics, no offense, but you had mis spelled a few words, and I noticed, but anyways you're intelligent, maybe you were typing fast. Clinton's cock ... I would never want to see that man's cock no matter how long I live. I would probably vomit ... G.W. Bush is making a mess, let's face it. There are now 3 beheadings, however I think the first of 3 was fake, or fraudulant, 'there was no blood really' The prices of gas soared, Bush owns oil fields ... 1 + 2 ='s 3, common sense there. What were the reasons for him to go after Saddam Hussein? and look at Iraq, is it actually better and safe now? Yeah if you like to live in hell... Sort of reminds me of the District of Columbia, only that they are killing for oil, not cocainne... Osama attacked us on 9/11, what is Bush doing about Osama? There is alot of what ifs and what abouts, and howcomes.. Maybe we just don't know what's going on. Sure we demand truth, but when the truth comes out about what's really going on, can all of you handle it? I could. Most likely the truth is horrifying. What is in area 54? LOL. Anywise, that's my 2 cents. I can go on all night, I am a writer myself, but I will stop now and continue what I was doing before I found your blog. Mark, check your spelling before you save, you talk intelligent, but mis spell, tips for fellow writers, don't get offended ...
- Judas - Priest -
If you guys are worried about Marc's misspellings, read his site, there's a page called "Poor spelling is a mark of genius". Read it. :)
Posted by: Chris at June 26, 2004 10:10 AMMance: several spelling mistakes in your recent posts. If you expect to influence and change minds…use a proofreader or spell check or we may think you are a MORON!
“He's amazing at posting only selective parts of articles. He hasn't mentioned that eevry single one the lawmakers present (3 were mentioned in the Post article) said that they” …EEVRY? You should know that is spelled every!
“You see, I have too much of a life to return her multiple times daily to make posts and prove why Perkel's full of shit.” Return to her? Is this a Freudian slip? Hmmmm