EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Before Judge, Spirited Clash on Subpoenas for Bush Aides
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for the Bush administration and Congress clashed on Monday before a federal judge over whether White House officials could refuse to comply with subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee.
The judge, who represents the third branch of government, noted the judiciary's burden in being asked to referee the constitutional battle. Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court, who participated in spirited arguments with both sides for nearly three hours, summed up the court's predicament, saying, "Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance."
The case, with its fundamental issues of the separation of powers and the extent to which the executive branch may withhold information, involves efforts by Democrats on the committee to investigate whether the White House exercised improper political influence in the firing of several federal prosecutors. The House has voted to hold in contempt Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Joshua C. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, who have refused to provide documents and testimony about the dismissals of the United States attorneys.
If Judge Bates sides with the House, it would be the first time a court has agreed to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House. Whatever the ruling, many lawyers presume the issue has such significance that it will ultimately be decided by a higher court.
Irvin B. Nathan, representing the House, said the administration had no basis to assert, as it had, that its officials have absolute immunity from Congressional subpoena.
Mr. Nathan also asserted that the White House had said publicly that President Bush had nothing to do with the dismissals of the prosecutors, thereby eliminating the argument that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten would be discussing their advice to the president, a foundation for executive privilege.
Carl Nichols, a senior Justice Department official, told Judge Bates that it would be unprecedented for him to order executive branch officials to comply with the subpoena. If the judge did so, he said, "Congress would be free to sue the executive branch any time it wants."
© 2008 The New York Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show AllIn today's world with the Bush's total destruction of our Constitution, we need some new and unprecedented judicial decisions to get our country back on track and in the hands of "We the People".
AND IF IT COMES TO PASS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE POWER IN THE UNIVERS...HUP! THE MILLION PAGES OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS... WILL FALL BEHIND A FILING CABINET...IN KARLS OLD OFFICE..STILL BEING USED..ODDLY...AS HE IS ON.."VACATION"...SO BE IT...YO PAID FOR IT...AND CONTINUE TO PAY FOR IT...ENJOY...THIS PRODUCTO DE BUSHCO...
Hmmm, the function of a judge....is to "Judge!"
"Congress would be free to sue the executive branch any time it wants."
Whats the worry? They have the power to impeach and seem unwilling to do that(unless sex is involved).
"Congress would be free to sue the executive branch any time it wants."
It's not a lawsuit, it's a subpoena. I don't understand how the above statement would be true.
Found Fathers are turning in their graves.
"Congress would be free to sue the executive branch any time it wants."
Apart from the difficulty in seeing the downside of "Congress ... free to sue ... any time it wants" (as if it isn't already), it's not Congress that's "sueing" the executive branch at all.
"The executive branch" has made the legal move of refusing to comply with orders for testamonials (subpoenas), in order to cover up illegal persecution of opponents to their equally illegal war.
This becoming a legal matter is entirely by the choice of "the executive". But the murderous cry-babies in the Bush-adm. will never stop crying "foul!" about any formal reaction to all their illegalities. Even when they've deliberately elicited that reaction.
The judge and the White House attorney seemed to have completely missed the whole idea of checks and balances between the 3 independent and co-equal branches. The judge whines about having to decide a case between the two branches and says ""Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance.""
Duhh! That's your job dude. Its not your job to worry about some imaginary 'balance'. A branch of government that is co-equal with the executive branch has said it requires the testimony of American citizens who happen to be employed at the White House. If we are still a nation of laws and still have a rule of law, that's a no-brainer to agree with.
If White House officials haven't been subpoena before, then its most likely because no previous White House had the nerve to ignore the requests for testimony that precedent the subpoenas.
And if there is some balance that the judge is supposed to be watching, its been so badly upset so long ago that the truly patriotic act of a judge that loves his country would surely be to start to take a step towards restoring it.
The White House lawyer is even worse of course. "If the judge did so, he said, "Congress would be free to sue the executive branch any time it wants.""
Double Duhh. The whole idea of the Constitution is that the Congress is supposed to be able to act as a check on a runaway executive. The founders of the Constitution deliberately created the system of three co-equal branches that could all serve as checks and balances against each other precisely to stop an administration like the Bush Administration. Of course the Congress can sue the Executive Branch any time they way to. That's what's called the rule of law. All people and all organizations are subject to the same laws. The President gets to neither choose which laws he'll obey (which is why almost every signing statement is an impeachable offense) nor write laws on his own.
To object to this is fundamentally anti-American. To complain about this just shows that this lawyer hates America. Not the phony fake propaganda America these clowns dream up to worship. But the real America that our forefathers fought and died to create. The real America that is a nation of laws. The real America where all people are equal. The real America where no-one, not even a President, especially not a President is above the law nor immune to suits and court action. The real America that gives us our liberties and freedoms and tries to protect with exactly this sort of checks and balances. Yes, it is very clear that this man and this administration hate America. We should tell them to love it or leave it. I'd be hoping they'd take the latter choice personally.
Congress IS free to sue the executive branch anytime it wants. Each case should be judged on its merit. A valid subpoena needs to be honored. This judge needs to pay attention to the merits of the case and not get his head all into some "larger issue"...
The judge in this case obviously doesn't get it. The Constitution created "the balance" when it stipulated the existence of co-equal branches of government...the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. George Bush and his syncophants have consistently disresected and ignored the Constitution. Please, Your Honor, put an end to it.
if you war mongering idiots attack iran,life on the planet earth will be finished very soon thereafter..........
These judges can't see the forest for the trees. Social Studies 101: Checks and balances, period. But this cockamamy President thinks he doesn't have to answer to our form of government that gives equal power to all three departments. He's had Gonzales and others who have twisted the interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No one is above the law.
So, since Judge John D. Bates is going to hold so much power deciding the balance between the White House and Congress, lets take a look at who this man is.
Skipping his earlier career, he first came to national notice as a Deputy Independent Counsel for Kenneth Starr from 1995 to 1997, investigating Bill Clinton for Watergate.
He was appointed a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia in December of 2001 by President George W. Bush.
In February, 2006, he was appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Among his more controversial rulings:
He dismissed the General Accounting Office's legal effort to learn with whom VP Cheney's secret energy task force met.
In July of 2007 he dismissed a lawsuit filed by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson against VP Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage.
In December of 2002, he ruled that Representative Dennis Kucinich and 31 other members of the House of Representatives had no standing to challenge President Bush's abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty without Congressional approval. He ruled that it was nothing but a "political question."
Does anybody really believe that this craven Bush butt-boy is going to do anything but protect the criminals in the White House who have given him all his power and position?
That is such a ridiculous excuse for not wanting to lift the veil of secrecy from this fraudulent administration. This Judge needs to be impeached and removed from this position. He is either stupid or knows nothing about constiutional law and the separation of powers and does not need to be in this position. Just like the fraudulent the President is entitled to some funning from Congress for some of his fake projects and programs, the Congress is charged with providing guidance and oversight and is entitled to information related to that. This Judge is just ridiculous and he should be very carefully studied in Law School so students know how not to be intentionally stupid.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/NASAcert.html
SRD-BCCM