Tuesday 28 June 2005

Supreme Court In Disarray; Confuses Two Rulings

Demand Reporters Provide Source of Ten Commandments

Perhaps as a sign that the health of ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist is more serious than disclosed, the Supreme Court yesterday -their last day of the current session - confused two cases and announced that two news reporters must divulge the source of the Ten Commandments.

Court onlookers were stunned when the decision was read.

The case in front of the court was an appeal filed by Time Magazine's Matthew Copper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, seeking to overturn a lower courts ruling that the two reporters reveal their confidential sources as to their investigation into who divulged the name of CIA agent, Valerie Plame.

Earlier, the court had issued split decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on government property.

Columnist Robert Novak had previous to Cooper or Miller, published the name of Plame, who Novak said was supplied to him by "two senior administration officials". The unusual leaking of an active, undercover CIA agent was looked as a political payback.
Plame's husband, the former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been critical of the Bush Administration and their plans to invade Iraq.

Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story. Both were held in contempt for refusing to reveal their sources and both face up to 18-months in jail, or until the grand jury completes is inquiry, whichever comes sooner.

So now, with this new ruling from the Supreme Court, the federal judge and prosecutor in the case, not only have to get the reporters to offer their sources of the Plame story, but also must have them identify the source of the Ten Commandments.

"I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing" offered Miller. "I suppose I can offer them the DVD of the DeMille movie".

"I think Time has some back issues that deal very directly with the Ten Commandments", said Cooper. "There's articles upon articles, written by scholars, that should satisfy the court".

Special Prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, refused comment, saying he hadn't read the opinions yet.

Legal analysts say they don't know what will happen next.

"With the decision read into the record, that is the law of the ruling", offered Floyd Abrams, Ms. Miller's attorney. "They're going to need a case, coming all the way up from the lower courts in order to overturn and correct this decision. That's going to take years".

One longtime clerk at the Supreme Court had a more simple solution.

'They're going to need the Lord's help in figuring this one out"