Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1293959
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1293959
1 Like
Looking forward to more details, but wasn’t this a Trump appointed judge?
2 Likes
This sucks.
15 Likes
If it was an appeals court, it was a panel of at 3 judges.
Expect the House to seek a riew en banc (by the court’s entire complement of active judges).
42 Likes
So much for checks and balances.
22 Likes
That’s exactly what they’ll do (and should get it). This is outrageous.
16 Likes
Was not one single judge.
Was a panel (Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit).
We’ll see if the House pursues the case. I would not be surprised either way.
4 Likes
As legal analysis goes, that’s pretty succinct.
19 Likes
Maybe it’s time for holding McGahn (and Agent Orange, for that matter) in inherent contempt, and jail his person until he wants to answer questions truthfully.
14 Likes
On that front Team Trump did its thing. Even though this will be followed up on (see above @old_curmudgeon)
The world of Lawyers can be “managed”…but coronavirus is not a lawyer
5 Likes
Henderson = GHWB
Griffith = GWB
Rogers (the dissenter) = Clinton
And just as a reminder, the en banc D.C. Circuit still has a 7-4 majority for the good guys. I pretty much expect the court to grant en banc review and flip today’s dumb result.
ETA: Unless Jerry Nadler decides he wants to take a suicide run at the Supreme Court, which can just duck the issue by denying certiorari if he decides against seeking en banc review.
33 Likes
Well if these folks don’t think they can decide this case then doesn’t that give the house free reign to jail McGahn until he testifies?
19 Likes
Justice is now so 20th century…
So is the Constitution…
12 Likes
Someone needs to tell these two judges about U.S. v. Nixon. They seem to be unaware of it.
13 Likes
It’s a long, split decision that I’ve only scanned. The majority seems to hold it is a political question the courts can’t get into. That’s not necessarily wrong. One of the 2 in the majority concurred in a way that seems to narrow the impact of it, but again I only skimmed very quickly. One dissented, basically saying it isn’t a political question because courts enforce subpoenas all the time.
If the HJC seeks en banc, they may prevail, but it’ll just go up to SCT and we know how that will turn out.
Bottom line, I think, is that if HJC can’t go to court to enforce subpoenas then it is left with its inherent powers to lock them the F up in the broom closet.
21 Likes
The majority opinion said that the court agreed with the Justice Department’s argument “that Article III of the Constitution forbids federal courts from resolving this kind of interbranch information dispute.”
Laying bare the bald-faced lie of every single GOP senator (and not a few Pelosi-bashing TPM posts) that “The House should’ve waited for the courts to resolve subpoena disputes before rushing forward with impeachment!”
58 Likes
Yup. Purely a dispute between the Executive and the Legislative. No business of ours, no sirree!
9 Likes
Translation: “Fuck No, we won’t touch this one. PUNT!”
6 Likes
Silver lining? Maybe it actually gives Congress the right and authority to enforce its own subpoenas via the Capital Police and the Criminal Justice System.
If the party does not comply, then they get arrested and go to jail and are charged with criminal contempt.
If Congress cannot appeal to the courts to enforce a subpoena, then the subpoenaed party should not be able to either.
24 Likes
You and your 100% hindsight. Again…
13 Likes