More On Thursday's Rulings

Feeling a bit like Elaine Bennis, I was a bit disconcerted today passing a woman walking down the street in my residential neighborhood (no liberal bastion) who was wearing only a bikini like top. A worker above her was pretty interested, unless he was looking to see if a co-worker's car was coming. Now, don't infer I'm complaining about such summer sights. I'm just wondering what is running through the minds of the women wearing such outfits. I'm supposing they don't want people to stare or anything. This not being the beach, this might be asking a tad much. Ah summer.

The notion that the government is too busy even to work with the district court at narrowing discovery is part and parcel of this larger claim to blanket authority and secrecy. Which leads me to one small practical point: Why does releasing the mere names of the participants in those discussions squelch the openness and candor of the advice given the president? I understand that there is good reason not to turn over the minutes of meetings. But the distinction between who gives advice to the president and what advice is given still strikes me as a valid one. Can't we protect both candor and the public's right to know? Of course the president has a "right to huddle," as you put it. But doesn't the public have at least some interest in knowing whose hand is on his rear?

- Dahlia Lithwick, responding to Walter Dellinger

Other good posts on "F-You" Cheney's Energy Task Force Case can be found here (broad protection of executive power and weakening of open government laws), here (big win in Cheney's ongoing mission to strengthen executive power), and here (GAO lawsuit). I expand on the themes in my last post, including discussing the true constitutional role of the jury, here.

Ah, rain ... no Subway Series tonight.