Friday, June 25, 2004Unlike some liberals, I am all for executive secrecy. The President cannot get good advice if everything is going to show up in the papers the next day. I even think the NYT vs. Sullivan decision prohibiting prior restraint might have been mistaken. However, I simply cannot find a rational explanation for the Supreme Court's decision to delay a case involving the release of executive documents, particularly since the case is over two years old (I'm not sure about this though- can someone check it out?).
If they simply rejected the case, I could understand it. But to argue that providing the documents and/or being deposed would be unduly onerous to the President is simply outrageous. Have we forgotten the Clinton administration? Bill's presidency was brought to a halt by endless fishing expeditions. What was the court's rationale then> Why, that executive privilege does not protect the administration when there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. So how is this different from now?
I'll tell you what I think is the real reason that they are delaying any case- they don't want it to effect the election. Now why would that be?
P.S. I know Breyer voted with the majority. Don't ask me to explain it.