Appeals court denies Plame's attempt to sue U.S. officials

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A federal appeals court in Washington has rebuffed an attempt by former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to sue top administration officials for the public disclosure of her intelligence job.

...

A three-judge panel rejected the attempt by the Wilsons to revive a lawsuit dismissed by a lower court. The Wilsons wanted to sue Vice President Richard Cheney; his former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby; former White House advisor Karl Rove; and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

"Because the Wilsons have failed to state constitutional … claims for which relief may be granted and failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required … we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the Wilsons' amended complaint in its entirety," the court said.

...

A lawyer for the Wilsons, Melanie Sloan, told CNN the conservative majority on the court "basically seemed to find there is no remedy for what Cheney, Rove and Libby did."

She said the likely appeal may focus on what she called the "Catch-22″ of being told to file suit under a law that does not apply to the perpetrators. "It's a pretty scary conclusion," Sloan said, "if this decision can stand, then government officials can be protected for sacrificing intelligence operatives and national security in the name of politics."

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/12/appeals-court-denies-plames-attempt-to-sue-us-officials/

Rogers concurred in part and dissented in part.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Try Article III -- the one that indicates that Federal judges are appointed for lifetime terms.

Please tell me that you don't really think the president can "fire" federal judges.

but you can't fire judges.

of course everyone threw a fit when Bush fired prosecutors, but here someone is calling for the new president to fire judges. Oh the hypocrisy! LOL

Right after the swearing in.

At least until February.

It disturbs me considerably to regularly read 'libels' against judges, when so many haven't read and/or understood decisions about which they complain.

Government employees who engage in questionable acts, such as abusing prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility or engaging in defamatory speech, cannot be held individually liable if they are carrying out official duties, the court said.

"The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/pl_nm/usa_cheney_plame_dc_2

that Plame's own attorney was still studying the decision! But don't let that stop you from forming immediate opinions about it. lol

I'm no expert on the law in this area. But I know enough not to immediately call for a judge's firing (or arrest) based on the result. I need to know how and why the decision was reached.

Process really is key for judges; not results.

accelerate the case. I don't get whatever point you are trying to make there. Her attorney needs to decide if they are going to file over the Appeals Court. You don't file a premise on a snap decision, right? You "study" case law and look for standing, no? It takes more than a minute.

even the attorney in the case was still studying the decision. Wise move. But there are some on here who have not even read the decision who are loudly screaming that the judge be fired or arrested. Based on the result only.

If the attorney can still take time to read the decision, then maybe we can all step back and try to understand the decision before calling for the judge's head.

but I'm sure he would appreciate your magnanimity.

Thank you. :)

What do you think you're doing, being a voice of sanity and intelligence in the midst of these torch-bearing villagers?

You've got a lot of nerve, mister, that's all I can say.

From the quick look I took at the opinion - all of thirty seconds - it looks like the court told Plame's attorney that they chose the wrong forum. Whatever their reasoning, I do know that it's really, really hard to sue any government, sovereign immunity and all that. They might have had administrative remedies, but I don't know that for a fact.

Now, just watch yourself, buddy, and quit trying to make sense. Carry your torch, call for someone's - anyone's - head, and, while you're at it, bleat about how you're still waiting to see Karl Rove dragged out of somewhere in handcuffs.

Consider yourself warned.

Thanks for the warning. :)

as to why Sentelle used his idiotic "scope of employment" defense,

but, hey, just details - whatever. :eyes:

The individuals were employed by the government, right?

That's why they have to exhaust the administrative remedies first.

Details. Ain't they bothersome?

Uh no - the appellees would LOVE to have the appellate court determine they can't be sued and that was the HEART OF THIS FILING.

The hack judge granted their explicit wish with his determination.

You are assuming that was the correct outcome based on what Libby et al wanted, not which is legally correct.

The detail you seemed to have missed is that the judge substituted the federal gov't for the individual appellees in order to derail this suit, which is "bothersome".

This was the entire thrust of the case, not simply a singular, jurisdictional matter.

Put down that blazing torch and pay attention, if you want to.

I'm not arguing anything.

And yes, you are echoing the argument of the appellees, whether you realize it or not.

an argument is when there are at least two sides and people are disputing the stances of the other. I'm not disputing anyone's stance.

Me, I'm just saying that there are concepts that had to be taken into consideration. You feel the need to label my statements are "arguments," which I notice you have now downgraded to "echoing the argument," that's fine, just as long as it makes you feel better.

An opinion is not an argument. It's just an opinion. And when it's different from yours, well, it's still just an opinion.

and opinion before dispensing your "summary" of the facts.

about the matter. It's nothing but an exercise in jurisdiction and venue for me, something that always entertains me when I'm being lazy. And, keep in mind, I never once addressed the facts of the case; nor did I put forth any kind of summary of the facts. Do you always have these fugues? Or is this simply an isolated incident?

As for the "honey," here in the South, that's a term of affection, and that is how it was intended. It's regrettable that you found it "condescending," most unfortunate.

Consider yourself not a "honey."

Your snide remarks about villagers w/pitchforks, Karl Rove and nobody but you knowing what's what.

You obviously don't know shit about it, but just wanted to crap out an opinion of everybody else.

Never make the mistake that all of us are as woefully under informed as you.

As far as "honey" and "the south" - I'm a Texan and I find your phony patronizing attitude the height of rudeness and ignorance.

you're uninformed and unenlightened, and that makes for really incoherent nonsense being spewed forth. Yes, you sure do remind me of those pitchfork-carrying villagers, and your lack of understanding of the judicial process is embarrassing.

Fortunately, since you were never able to respond directly to any of my answers, you were able to fall back on vulgarity, namecalling, and spurious silliness.

And, really, we all know that Texas isn't the South. Why, George W. Bush would have turned out completely differently if he'd lived in the South.

I hope you have a better day today. I'm going to leave you alone now, because your weaknesses are so apparent, this back-and-forth is like playing with one's food.

Like I said before, stuff it.

of you. :sarcasm:

People with perspectives such as yours really do harm to the concept of liberal Democratic politics. You do have a lot to learn in terms of understanding the judicial process, but, more, to begin to comprehend that others might hold opinions different from yours and that, dear heart, is what makes America great. When you post something like you posted above to me, you simply continue the George W. Bush legacy, and, really, I'm sure that's not at all what you intend to do.

I'm sure you're not as stupid as that post, and you probably did it in a moment of exhaustion and bad judgment. Now, rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sentelle

And have no plans to.

But the article, if it presents the opinion accurately, doesn't quite mean what you seem to say.

There's no Nuremberg defense here. Finding that the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment is arguing jurisdiction: Before you have recourse to civilian courts, because the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment first you have to try to handle it by all possible (or at least reasonable) *administrative* routes.

Then, after all reasonable administrative routes are exhausted, the court so much as implies there may be a remedy to be found in the civil courts. The verdict: "Hey, you've come to the wrong window. You want window #8 in the office across the hall; if that doesn't work, then maybe try checking back with us. Next!"

This is a far cry from the Nuremberg defense, in which finding that the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment means that there is *no* legal remedy against them. "Sorry, Jack, they're government employees and are Untouchables if the Big Man says what they're doing is copacetic."

That defense may eventually be offered by a judge on this matter. But unless you're reading something I'm not, I'm just not seeing it here.

it with you.

A few highlights - the appellate court DID say they have no real remedy as it relates to a Bivens claim, so they are screwed as to any real relief.

Also, the pivotal issue of the govt's certification of the Westfall Act is the basis of the filing and it is THAT which the appellees are relying on to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds, whose basis is very much in dispute.

But this is all kind of beside the point if no one is reading the actual filing, the dismissal or the appeal opinion but me.

As an attorney, I feel the same. Here's why: I want an independent judiciary. That means I don't want to evalute a judge based on RESULTS. I want fairness and adherence to the law. If you want a judge to rule a specific way just because you like the outcome, then you can't say you are in favor of an independent judiciary. You just want the judge to rule your way.

Liberals need to stand for independent judiciary. That means withholding commentary about a judge until you understand the merits of a decision, not jumping to the conclusion that the judge is a politcal hack because you don't like the end result.

You understand he predicated his decision on the Nuremberg defense (right down to torturing detainees)?

You are aware he has a loooong history of providing judicial cover for politically motivated cases?
And that is WHY he was APPOINTED by the extreme elements of the right-wing originally?

What's your point?

Read the decision and tell me where they made a legal error in your opinion. We don't live in a system of justice by the cries of the masses and I am glad we don't.

in regards to outing a CIA operative.

Are you looking for a way to defend this particular cretin?

The judges appointed by Republicans or the judge appointed by the Democrats. Since they all must be cretins then who do you want to decide our legal issues?

If not, don't bother replying.

If you didn't know that then don't bother replying.

Tell me something I don't know.

it's a good thing you didn't have anything to say about the nomination of Earl Warren to be Chief Justice all those years ago.

You sure do lack understanding of the judicial process, but your tenacity is admirable, given the depth of your ignorance.

I'm so tempted here to say "right on," but I'm sure you'd read it as a political statement.

You obviously have nothing of substance to say, so stuff it.

that's hardly a temperament that could bolster your contention about the Wilson/Plame matter, although, right now, I'm hard-pressed to characterize what your contention might have been since my facility with blather is not all that, oh, you know, facile.

Read about Earl Warren. He has a great biography, and his evolution is absolutely inspirational, giving hope to liberals everywhere and for all time.

It seems to me that these traitors Cheney, Rove, bushco ,and Libby won't have justice served on them.