Doesn't she have a valid lawsuit? Or is it the fact that the administration's house of cards will come tumbling down if we go down that road? Is this a mild obstruction of justice to keep yet another figure quiet? I am not taking sides or trying to be biased, just curious what others thoughts' are.
2007-07-19 09:50:18 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901496.html
2007-07-19 09:53:51 · update #1
What Chef Trav asked below is exactly what I was wondering...
2007-07-19 10:06:10 · update #2
Chev Trav's summation that by dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds does not mean that the case can be refiled in a different court, that is, a different jurisdiction.
The Federal Judge is telling the Plame's that their case lacks any jurisdictional justification for being heard and moreover has set forth an opinion that the Administration was withing their rights to act as they did. In other words, the Plame argument lacks jurisdictional qualification in the Federal Courts.
By not ruling on Constitutional grounds, he sets aside an appealable issue. And that's why the opening paragraph of the article declares this matter, in so many words, as over and done with.
Precedents:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/082002/&invol=7082002_2002
2007-07-19 14:42:32 · answer #1 · answered by pjallittle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My original post is below. I found out I was wrong about something that must be declared:
The case was dismissed without consideration of the Constitutional grounds, but basically because it was filed incorrectly. Plame may reapply at will. This was not a case of the defendants being found not guilty (the other Federal case was). I stand corrected.
Original post:
May I suggest instead that our courts have twice found the defendants not guilty and you still attempt to treat them as "Guilty until proved innocent", a basic right even you have.
That's wrong and unjust.
Are you saying that if the courts judged in favor of her, they would have been true (I heard no screams of bias before the loss), but since Ms. Plame lost they are therefore puppets of the administration?
You do an injustice to the courts, madam, not they to you.
2007-07-19 17:06:31 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
key words: immune from such lawsuits
whats so hard to understand about that? her lawsuit is not valid.
2007-07-19 16:59:11 · answer #3 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The case that she is filing has no jurisdiction anywhere in this country. It is a great injustice and political witchhunt that allows anything to be said about this issue. But then again what can you expect from the liberal democrats. They believe a president who lied under oath and said he did nothing wrong. Total injustice there too.
2007-07-19 17:06:49 · answer #4 · answered by Michael H 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.
In other words, it was filed in the wrong court and needs to be filed in the correct court, there is no decision or reflection on the constitutional grounds of the complaint.
2007-07-19 16:58:03 · answer #5 · answered by fieryfox59 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The article states that the lawsuit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Doesn't that mean that they can refile in the proper jurisdiction?
2007-07-19 17:03:35 · answer #6 · answered by Trav 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, she did not have a valid lawsuit.
Plame was not covert, yet claims she was "outed."
The man who revealed that she was once covert was Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby.
It is interesting that you determine that a judges ruling to dismiss a suit is an obstruction of justice.
2007-07-19 16:57:36 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
as soon as she brings a lawsuit against Richard Armitage (the guy who everybody admits leaked her name) she will be "a little" more respectable in my view but until then she and her husband are lying political hacks.
2007-07-19 17:05:55 · answer #8 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
she couldn't keep her answers straight, which means she LIED. Her "facts" kept changing. Pretty scary when you consider she was an "undercover (or was that under THE covers) operative".
Maybe it's time to fire the WHOLE GOVERNMENT and start over from scratch.
2007-07-19 16:55:23 · answer #9 · answered by Sarge1572 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
She has no valid lawsuit. She never did. It was all just a bunch of media masturbation.
2007-07-19 16:55:37 · answer #10 · answered by Skooz 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋