As a panel of three appeals court judges interrogated attorneys for the House and President Trump over a congressional subpoena to his accounting firm, one of the trio stood apart in the level of her skepticism towards the House.
Wow, where to begin. A federal judge telling congress what it can and canāt do internally, which the constitution vested it with the clear power to determine for itself, and meddling in full house vs. committee and the rightful power of a lawfully appointed committee to do what it lawfully can do? This is clear judicial overreach and one branch meddling in the internal affairs of another. I donāt think that even Roberts would approve, as this could be made to work both ways in the future if allowed.
It is of utterly no concern to the courts whether an otherwise proper investigation is undertaked with the consent of the full house or a committee that is empowered by the full house to do so. For all intents and purposes itās the same thing, externally. Itās like giving someone power of attorney over certain matters. Sheās WAY out of line here and needs to be called out on the carpet for it.
Obviously, were congress controlled by Repubs and the president was a Dem, sheād be ok with the house Indian Affairs subcommittee impeaching the president for receiving a $5 mug from some foreign dignitary while abroad because it had more blue than red on it.
These people are mentally and morally disturbed. They just want to win and dominate.
Fuck you, Mitch!
Not sure if sheās an idiot or a shill. Both, since it canāt possibly fly?
forever and always.
Raoās reasoning is certainly ācreativeā to say the least. Nitpicking about whether the entire House authorized the subpoena misses several points at once and neglects to take into account how such congressional investigations have been done for decades. I donāt seem to recall any such questions being raised during the multitude of Benghazi investigations, when it seemed as though Republicans in the House and Senate could investigate anything they wanted without any justification. Granted that didnāt involve a sitting president, but the investigations - pointless as they were - were never subjected to this leval of pedantic scrutiny.
Congressās lawful power to decide how it conducts its own business has been a settled matter for literally centuries. Her skepticism is grounded in Republican pixie dust and the theory of magical ponies.
I donāt think Rao, as a Federal Judge, has the right to question how Congress delegates its powers within its own bodies. They can examine the constitutionality of investigative actions taken by those committees after the fact. They can also determine if the POTUS has any privilege or immunity here. Executive privilege does not apply here.
Congress essentially has the right to witch hunt if it wants, more or less.
That said, all of this couldāve been avoided with an impeachment inquiry. Youāre likely to see an appeal to SCOTUS and youāre putting this matter in the hands of people like Kavanaugh.
Even if it goes to SCOTUS, they have to think twice about siding with her as one day Repubs will be in charge of congress again and this would be used as a precedent to block their inevitable investigations. But, itās so ridiculous on its face that I donāt think thatāll even be a consideration. The constitution and case law are very clear that congress can determine how it conducts itself, and only its external actions are subject to judicial review, not how it ended up taking them.
She has no right to question house oversight. If she says nothing happens until impeachment, than she is trying to limit oversight from day one
Trumpās investment in corrupt incompetent right wing ideologues to the judiciary is paying off better than any investment he has ever made in business.
Well, perhaps sheās not keeping up with current events.
the only question at this point is whether the other two judges will let her embarrass herself with a non-sensical dissent, or take pity on her, and explain how constitutional law actually works.
How soā¦ Thomas has already produced the rationale that the Supremes shouldnāt be afraid to overturn previous rulings which were wrong.
Thereās nothing to stop them just turning around during a Democratic Presidency and ruling against the administration on an identical case.
Thinking about it a little more and I think Rao might be inclined to vote to uphold the subpoenas. The argument by the Trumpers is really flimsy. Itās just a bad set of facts and bad legal arguments if youāre pro-trumper. The Trumper challenges to the Mueller fact witness subpoenas will be on much more solid ground in the absence of an impeachment inquiry. Even there, the fact that the witnesses have already testified to Mueller and the summary of the testimony is public undercuts the Trumper argument, but the cons might use the case to expand executive privilege as they seem to think (e.g. Kavanaugh) that US v Nixon was wrongly decided and Nixon shoulda gotten away with it.
Clearly she has been bought and paid for by the Heritage Society and the Trump Rethuglican party.
Well thatās no surprise but I still let out a little scream.
Iām withholding judgement until Matthew Whitaker weighs in.
Since Fāing Moron thinks an impeachment process will boost his election chances, I wonder if this judge is trying to force the House to do just that?
Iām all in, if thatās what they want!
Next time, make it louder.