If AttorneyGate goes to the courts, I think that is BAD.

[garybeck]

All this talk about "President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from former White House aides" and how this will likely send the case to court.

Patrick Leahy seems to think this is a powerful threat, taking the issue to court and letting a judge decide.

But isn't that exactly what Bush wants? Isn't that their ace in the hole? Taking it to court will take the power away from Congress and give it to some cronie judge that Bush probably appointed. It will drag the thing out forever and potentially give them a legal leg to stand on for claiming executive privalege on anything they choose.

I think going to court is a big mistake. I think Leahy should keep it in Congress as long as possible. Can't they send the marshalls to deliver the subpeonas without getting the courts involved?

I believe the Constitution gives the Congress the power to handle this. Any time it appears headed for the courts they should steer clear, I don't like it.

Tell me I'm wrong, tell me the courts are going to save us.

[tritsofme]

1. Very scary with the shape our federal courts

let alone the SCOTUS is in.

If the courts rule in Bush's favor and a precedent is set for these wacked out claims of executive prilvelage, we are in a very scary situation indeed.

However the GOP may come to regret such moves come January 2009.

[SoonerPride]

2. Congress can turn off the power to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Literally, they can

[AndyTiedye]

3. Bush** Has Packed the Courts. We Cannot Win There

[aquart]

12. Not in the Supreme Court.

Unless Kennedy suddenly recovers his wits. But the DC appellate court is probably not his friend right now.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I think Rove is counting on the Courts, and in the final analysis

the Supreme Court.

I don't know if that will work. The courts, even the current psychotic Supreme Court, have occasionally slapped the Bushies down.

Nevertheless, "The law is a ass." Ad f the Courts DO rule in favor of Bush, I think that will be enough to scare the living shit out of every literate American with an IQ over 82 and a stock portfolio of less than a billion.

[aquart]

16. It might even scare a few billionaires.

Not counting on that, though. The Roberts Court gives me the chills.

[wakeme2008]

5. This works both ways... President Hillary will LOVE

saying everything is executive privilege....

Think about what that would open up in the future.

[tritsofme]

6. I look forward to an imperial Presidency

in the hands of a Democrat little more than in the hands of a Republican.

[aquart]

14. Exactly. NO ONE should have that much power.

And god help us if a Democratic congress is as lapdog unquestioning of a Democratic president as the Republicans were. I want nitpicking oversight no matter who has the job.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Democratic administrations. Everyone knows that. (nt)

[mod mom]

7. Gary, The DoJ is a wing of the RNC and * stacked the SCOTUS with bushbots

so be afraid:

:scared:

[aquart]

17. With Democratic help, dammit.

I still don't understand what they were thinking. I will never understand what they were thinking.

[mod mom]

18. I was just thinking how pissed I still am at Sherrod Brown for voting for MCA '06

and the abandonment of habeas corpus, et al.

Yes Aquart, you are correct, with Democratic help. That is why it pisses me off that some folks here think as long as you have a D behind your name, we must support you.

[garybeck]

20. didn't he apologize for that?

Sam Seder discussed this a little while ago. Brown said he regretted the vote, admitted he did it for political purposes, and said that it was going to get approved with or without his vote.

it's a lame excuse but at least he realizes the mistake?

[mod mom]

24. I sent him a letter at the time and he replied back it was the right thing to do, later

I received a letter stating he was co-sponsoring a bill to restore Habeas Corpus.

So the answer is YES he did apologize BUT now we need 60 votes to over turn a former majority.

[garybeck]

29. maybe he learned, the right thing to do is

do the right thing the first time. don't sell your soul and try to correct it later.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. And how many others did the same?

And if all those who did, didn't, would that have changed the outcome?

We will never know, will we.

[aquart]

22. If the Democrat pisses you off, fight in the primaries.

And I TRULY deeply believe any Dem who offers aid and comfort to these anti-democratic unconstitutional bastards deserves a strong primary challenge. And it should be a regular thing, not a rare one.

But spoiler third party candidacies make me physically ill. Unless it's Pat Buchanan. That makes me giggle. On edit: I take that back. Pat's candidacy was used to steal votes in Florida. I now officially puke at all third party candidacies.

[mod mom]

25. In Ohio

we had someone challenge Brown but thanks to lackeys like Rahm Emmanuel who attempt to thwart letting the voters decide, we had our Democrats CHOSEN FOR US by party elite.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. The subpoenas have already been delivered

Bush challenges the right of Congress to do so. It has to end up in the courts.

[garybeck]

11. Impeachment hearings don't need courts.

the constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the President.

That's what it comes down to. That will soon be the only card they have left to play, and I fear that if they have already gone to court and been turned down the impeachment argument will lose a lot of luster.

[garybeck]

15. "Contempt of Congress"

does not require any action from the courts. what are they waiting for.

they need to play every card they have and avoid the court.

[emulatorloo]

19. but "Contempt of Congress" requires that Republicans vote for it too and so far

Republicans are still covering Bush's behind.

[Edweird]

23. Bingo. What part of CO-EQUAL is confusing everybody?

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Yes, contempt of congress

charges would go to the court. A contempt citation would get referred to the DC US Attorney, who would then convene a grand jury.


As much as people would like to pretend it doesn't exist, there IS a constitutional separation of powers issue here, and the courts WILL decide on it.

[bunny planet]

10. Bush's only plan is to take it to the court and try and run out the clock when

it gets tied up there bouncing back and forth. Let's skip that step and go straight to contempt of Congress and even better impeachment proceedings for three at once, Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales. Or impeach Gonzo and Cheney first and let their stinking political carcasses hang around Bushie boys neck while he struggles to stay in power himself.

Enough already.

[Robbien]

13. You are exactly right. Jeff Taylor has been serving as Interim USA for DC

Empty Wheel over at TheNextHurrah has a good observation
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/and-while-were-.html

281 days. That's how long--by my admittedly rough count--Jeff Taylor has been serving as Interim USA for DC. He's been serving roughly 21 days since George Bush signed a law that effectively did away with the PATRIOT appointment he currently serves under. Yet there he is, a former DOJ clique-member, Counselor to the Attorney General for four years, and before that Counsel to the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yet come Wednesday, when it comes time to talk about a contempt citation for Sara Taylor, Jeff Taylor is the one who will get to choose whether or not he will serve that citation.

Now, perhaps Pat Leahy knows Taylor and is confident he'll serve SJC's subpoenas. But I doubt it, because if so, I'm guessing Taylor wouldn't have that "interim" before his name still.

So why is Jeff Taylor still serving? When do we get our new USA for DC? Because, in about four days, it'll become crystal clear that appointing a Senate-approved USA is long overdue

[emulatorloo]

21. A Republican Bush Appointee sentenced Scooter Libby to 30 years in prison

And Republicans on the DC Appellate court ruled that Libby had to go to jail.

So there still Republican judges who believe in the law.

(Unfortunately Bush was able to subvert them with his "commutation" powers. He doesn't have that power here)

[garybeck]

28. Supreme Court won't be so

kind to legal issues as they will their allegance.