The end result is an incomplete picture. What went into that end result matters as well. Likewise, I think a functional view should be taken here. Justice Scalia put great stock on the ability of a participant to "vote." The very act of voting is not the only way one can be distinctly involved in the final decision. If one goes to the store with one's spouse, the fact one actually buys the item doesn't mean his or her "vote" is all that matters. This is shown in part by how proposed legislation from lobbyists turns out to mirror actual legislation. Again, without info on the how, including their presence and involvement, we wouldn't know this.
[read the lede post]
My local paper, the NY Daily News, discussed the whole Senate filibuster debate today. It had a side box that (without comment) basically cut to the chase ... showed the b.s. involved here. Not only does the Republican appointments* control a majority of the appellate courts, but the Democrats blocked 10 of Dubya's nominations to the Republicans 60 of Clinton.
The blocks were not "filibusters" per se when the Republicans did it, since they controlled Congress and had the power to not even allow a committee vote. The end result is the same though, no matter what semantics is used to try to play "gotcha." Oh, perhaps President Bush can also actually learn some history? How many IQ points is the populace losing because these people are in office?
The same double standard can be shown in the Cheney Energy Task Force Case, which might be about ready to run its course (victory for the forces of bad, no shock). As discussed in SCOTUSblog, the DC Circuit held (in a case involving Hillary Clinton) that an open government act "could apply to a presidential advisory committee if there was regular participation by non-government individuals, on the theory that their role made them de facto members of the committee." The applicable groups were open to disclosure laws and "are required to be balanced in viewpoint." Cheney's Energy Task Force was unbalance and closed, though outside forces clearly had influence on the final proposed legislation.
Nonetheless, pushed upon by the Supreme Court's ruling that remanded the case, the DC Circuit now has a stricter rule. The act is only applicable if a member has "[an official] vote in or, if the committee acts by consensus, [official] veto over the committee?s decisions." The brackets are mine -- the non-voting individuals that the GAO and now interests groups on both sides of the ideological aisle want information on clearly have a major influence, even if it is not "official." The practice of lobbyists basically writing legislation has been ongoing, and only more prevalent these days. But, now -- when Bush not Clinton is involved -- we are supposed to ignore it.
Apparently, this has something to do with executive privilege etc., though actually the court allowed the v.p. not even to have to raise the issue. And, of course, the General Accounting Office (or whatever they want to call the damn thing these days) was acting in its legislative role when it asked for information that the vice president refused to supply as did the members of Congress who supported the GAO's efforts until it was pressured to give up the fight. Likewise, the advocacy groups have a right to petition the government and a general interest in finding out how outside groups are involved in the making of major energy legislation -- legislation that many argue leaves a lot to be desired.
Perhaps, that is why they want to make it up with their unbalanced forces behind closed doors.
---
* Republican nominees also have been shown to be more strongly ideologically conservative than the most recent Democratic (Clinton) nominees are ideologically liberal.