Appeals Courts Rule Congress can not Sue to Enforce Subpoenas

Good to know. I guess Congress has to start putting people in jail then using contempt power. As the courts have taken a seat, I fail to see how they can intervene

That's all that's left of oversight I guess? Too bad this didn't exist during Democratic administratons. Too bad we used to have democracy.

 

Too bad they couldn't throw them in a county jail gen pop, I guarantee another subpoena would never be ignored again.

EDIT: It's gonna head to the supreme court anyways, so I guess we'll wait and see.

 

That’s an impeachable offense. The house should take a vote ASAP!!!

 

Nothing left to do but pack the Courts, which is permitted in the Constitution. It is the only way to save democracy from the right wingers who have hacked our democracy through voter suppression, gerrymandering, and techniques such as ruling Congress cannot enforce subpoenas.

 

What an age to be in for white collar criminals

 

I've asked this a couple of times of the various Trumpanzees on this board. What type of government system do we have if Congress has no oversight on presidential power?

 

I've never supported the idea that the WH counsel could be subpoenad, i don't think anyone's legal advisor should be forced to testify against anyone, it's rather sovietski

Cabinet officials sure, but no, not the white house counsel.

But to answer your question, a republic with co equal branches, not a parliamentary system as they seem to want.

 

Alleging executive privilege for anyone who works near the White House is rather sovietski. The President can invent law through executive order, can re-direct funds appropriated by Congress, can block any legislation in the Senate, can block witnesses from testifying about his own illegal behavior, and can operate as the judge and jury in his own impeachment. That's not co-equal in any sense.

 

I'm just going to remind you that the guy you worship isn't always going to be President. There will be people who don't like holding that office in the future.

Just ask yourself if you want a potential presidency that you are against obtaining the same lack of ability to have oversight over.

 

Except the WH Counsel isn't personal counsel to whoever sits in the Presidency. It is the Counsel of the office. If Congress has oversight powers over the Executive that would be a necessity of the oversight.

 

If this does stand I'm pretty certain a Democrat President will use this power too and we're going to hear Republicans crying about it.

 

That's the the thing everybody loses. Why take the power away from a subpoena?

 

You’ve made it clear that you don’t stand for the flag in your avatar. You don’t have patriotic values

 

Turley on the McGahn decision:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/02/...r-of-white-house-in-barring-mcgahn-testimony/

February 29, 2020
D.C. Circuit Rules In Favor Of White House In Barring McGahn Testimony

This morning I have a column in the Hill newspaper on the devastating loss of the House of Representatives in The Committee on Judiciary v. Don McGahn last night. The D.C. Circuit sided with Trump in reversing a lower court and refusing to order the appearance of former White House Counsel Donald McGahn before Congress. It is not just a huge victory for the White House in barring such testimony but a devastating loss to the authority of Congress in future conflicts. I strongly disagree with the decision, though the panel fractured on both the result and the rationale. Only one judge adopted the extreme view that Congress should not have standing to seek relief any conflicts with the White House over witnesses and evidence. Yet, the opinion represents one of the greatest legal loss in the history of the House of Representatives in terms of its enforcement of oversight authority. Notably, this follows another victory for the Trump Administration in the D.C. Circuit earlier in the week on the Trump Hotel.

As the former lead counsel representing the House of Representative in litigation, I was left cringing at every line in the opinion. This is rock bottom in terms of congressional standing and enforcement. It is in a word catastrophic. The court notes that such defiant positions were taken by “Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Carter, and Reagan, among others.” Indeed, the court noted that giver “the President’s weighty interest in the confidentiality of his communications, one concern is that the Congress, susceptible to the fruits of political temptation, would not proceed ‘with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.’”

The decision shows that the White House had valid objections in seeking judicial review. Moreover, the three different views expressed on elements of the case show that judicial review is beneficial before any rush to impeach a president for obstruction. The House Managers mocked the arguments in this case on the Senate floor.

What is interesting is the view of the court that, while congressional subpoenas are not enforceable through such actions, judicial subpoenas are. That raises the question of whether Congress should return to the Independent Counsel Act where courts issued such subpoenas in investigations. If Congress cannot enforce such subpoenas to compel testimony, it may have to reconsider its abandonment of the prior model of an independent or special counsel from the Nixon and Clinton periods.

Here is the opinion: McGahn opinion
​

 

Can't Trump do the country a favor and just die already?

DD

 

Funny thing is this is exactly what Trump's lawyers were suggesting during the impeachment trial, that they should have sued to enforce their subpoenas instead of impeaching.