The Friday appeals court decision not to enforce a House subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn eviscerates congressional power and all but ensures “future Presidential stonewalling,” appellate judge Judith W. Rogers wrote in a blistering dissent.
Yup.
The two judges who ruled in favor of the Administration have moved us several steps closer to dictatorship and tyranny. Think about that Judge Thomas Griffith and Judge Karen Henderson. If this ruling stands – and we should fervantly hope it does not – you two will always be remembered as destroyers of democracy.
Judge Rogers should be on the next list of possible nomination to a SCOTUS seat (when we’re back in control). Smart lady.
"Rogers concluded that the ruling in favor of McGahn had removed “any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation.”
And I also think this will carry over to the way the administration is handling the coronavirus info fight,with the truth.
all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress
The Judiciary is tired of all the responsibility of being a co-equal branch of government. It wants a vacation to irrelevance.
It’s always a bad day when Trump scores a win, big or small. It’s too depressing.
She’s right. This is bad. Very bad. It’s the ultimate result of decisions like last year’s “we can’t deal with gerrymandering because it’s too political” ridiculousness from SCOTUS (Rucho v. Common Cause).
It is a license for stonewalling, and the current SCOTUS will affirm it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the House does not appeal to SCOTUS for fear of just that result, whereupon it will be written in stone.
Perhaps, at root, conservatives, including conservative federal judges are simply not happy with democracy, even representative democracy and would gladly, and with great relief, usher in a static era of minority rule predictability, even if the nation groans under the the boot heels of a privileged few.
The point of the decision is to support Republican presidents in their stonewalling of Congressional investigations…if this was about Obama I’m sure the two judges would have written a far different decision. These judges should really think about their decisions more, because there is no guarantee that a Republican will be sitting in the chair when the music stops and the dictatorship starts.
Don’t you think these same judges would turn on a dime in the future if the goverment were headed by a President Sanders or Warren?
Yes and that’s disgusting. The Judicial Branch has gotten politicized - something the Founders worked pretty hard to try to prevent. And for very obvious reasons. hahahaha
Tends to happen during the time spans of authoritarian regimes.
"Rogers concluded that the ruling in favor of McGahn had removed “any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation.”
So, it would seem that if this decision stands and precedent is set that the courts cannot intervene between branches of government, the only available solution will be Impeachment and removal any time the Executive refuses to play nice with either Legislative or Judicial branch.
Impeachment will be launched over every disagreement, rather than as a “last resort,” thus cheapening Impeachment (and our form of government) forever.
McGahn is Federalist Society from top to bottom and for a long time; he recommended all the conversative judicial appts. PP has made, stonewalling comes with the package because its theory is no one matters but the Chief Executive. See Barr, Bill.
this decision screams for the House to dust off inherent contempt — put McGahn in custody, and then cite this decision as requiring that McGahn remain in custody because according to these two judges, the courts have no role to play.
The chief executive as a kind of “Pope.” Elected by a “college” every now and then. Infallible. Male. Replaceable only upon death or resignation of his own accord. I think people are off the mark with the “King” analogy.
blue
" he recommended all the conversative judicial appts."
Trump on this one is just the dog chasing it’s tail.
Per Merriam-Webster on web: surfeit . “1 : an overabundant supply : excess. 2 : an intemperate or immoderate indulgence in something (such as food or drink) 3 : disgust caused by excess.” But your report as of 7pm on 2/28/2020, appears to use it to mean “lack.”
Let’s NOT forget that McGahn prepped and ushered to the SC none other than…the rapist in robes Kavbeernaugh!
One can only hope that the House and Senate will have majority after the next election and that they can legislate into law stringent measures to stop any repeat of what the ReThugniCONS is doing now!