White House attorneys are quite capable of coming up with creative legal arguments. The problem, though, is that judges aren’t willing to reward their creativity.
President Bush’s top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches.
House Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Bates said there’s no legal basis for Bush’s argument and that his former legal counsel, Harriet Miers, must appear before Congress. If she wants to refuse to testify, he said, she must do so in person. The committee also has sought to force testimony from White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten.
“Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena,” Bates wrote. He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.
Because I know this is the first question on the minds of many political observers, I should note that Bates was appointed to the federal bench by none other than George W. Bush. Indeed, Bates has, in general, been a Bush administration ally (he threw out Valerie Plame’s suit against Karl Rove, for example).
But not today. Bates wrote that “the Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it “very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances.”
So, what happens now?
The first thing to watch for is how quickly it takes Congress to follow up.
Democrats swiftly pledged to call Miers before the Judiciary Committee as soon as September to testify about whether the White House played any role in the firings of nine U.S. attorney’s last year…. [Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers] signaled election-season hearings will be held on the controversy that scandalized the Justice Department and led to the resignation of a longtime presidential confidant, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
“We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims,” Conyers said in a statement. “We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers to testify in September.”
The second thing to watch for is the appeal. The AP noted that Conyers “said he hoped that Miers and Bolten do not appeal the ruling.” Fat chance. The White House will almost certainly appeal, and hope to run out the clock before Bush’s presidency ends. Depending on the speed and efficiency of the appeals bench, this might work.
Third, this is not at all good news for Rove, who continues to claim the same “absolute immunity” that Bates rejected yesterday.
And then, there’s the big picture. Today’s ruling was an important one for the power of Congress and the scope of congressional oversight authority. Marty Lederman called it a “landmark decision,” and an “extraordinarily thorough, scholarly and thoughtful opinion.”
The right will no doubt dismiss it as judicial activism because, well, that’s what they always say when they lose.
No Trackbacks To “Judge rejects immunity claim, says White House aides can be subpoenaed“
just read this on Glen Greenwald… FUCKING W00T W00T! At least one branch is grudgingly doing their job once in a while
Fucking line ‘em up then.
Not only is blanket privilege dismissed, but the Court further ruled that a new president rebuking the claim can force the issue. Let’s hope Obama wins if all else fails, and he can deny the privilege claim and get these fuckers in (if no one does their jobs until the new administration kicks in).
Now, if only House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believed “in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances” we might actually have a chance at a legal government again.
But since she doesn’t, I doubt if this will go anywhere.
To quote the ruling directly
Can’t wait to see how this turns out. I would love to see this upheld in the Supreme Court. I’m sure Scalia and Thomas will try to overturn, but my guess is a 5-4 decision upholding, with the chance that Roberts sides with the majority. Also, do the republicans really want a holding allowing this absolute immunity? Wonder what they’ll say if Obama is in charge of the executive branch.
Let’s be clear, FWIW.
Judge Bates said there is no absolute executive privilege for Executive Branch members.
Said Miers, et al, were able to raise executive privilege on a question-by-question basis.
Good decision. Not the end of the story.
VietVet8666 @ 7:
quite right. they can claim exec privilege on a piece-by-piece basis, but each one is a smaller matter and a ruling can be found more quickly. Bush’s claimc of exec. privilege is detailed as due to the threat to national security…. nothing in the hiring/firing of the Attorneys has to do with national security, so they’re fucked.
Just because the Federal Court say’s so doesn’t mean the Dem. led Congress will actually do it.
Nobody hold your breath. Congress is going to wait this out until a new pres. and then convientely forget about it in the name of change.
Probably nothing much, since Congress is leaving for a Five (5) week vacation. So while they are gone we’ll see the bush administration somehow block this and push the deal about contraception being akin to abortion.
Barbara @ 4:
Beat me to it! Nancy’s thinking,”Oh,****!”
There is hope for the US judicial system.
mehhh, have some faith guys! If even a bush appointed federal judge can use such strong wording, the supreme court can’t find a reason to deny it. Losing faith in everything is akin to giving up your freedom willingly, I think. but then again, that’s just my opinion
“So, what happens now?”
Stall, stall, diversion, stall, stall, then pardon. That what happens….
uk visa @ 12:
YAY! *happy dance*
Isn’t this fours years too late? Jesus, Bush only has 173 days left! Well, here’s hoping we don’t strike I ran before he gets out of friggin office.
None of this will mean shit unfortunately, when Bush pardons every neocon criminal who’s ever worked in his administration on his last day in office…
Ooooh…On Hardball the VoteVets guy is bitch slapping the right winger on Iraq surge bullshit. Awesome. “The prime minister of Iraq has endorsed Obama’s plan”….
This would be a good clip to put up.
Jacob @ 6:
all we’ll hear is…”I don’t recall…I don’t recall…I don’t recall”…and we won’t hear that until next year as this whitehouse will certainly appeal this decision so that it will happen after bushco leaves office…
according to the hearing last friday the impeachment process is the only thing that changes the whole executive priviledge claim for both documents and court appearances…they have to respond to requests for information…once they leave office..that opportunity no longer exists…if we want the truth to come out…we only have less than 6 months to do so…otherwise, we’ll be lucky to find out in the next 20 years…
Wise at 8
Agree. Bates’s opinion urges, repeatedly, the two political branches to reach accomodation.
But Bates’s opinion makes clear that a committee of congress (as opposed to individual congress members) has standing to seek information in order to make legislation.
Trawled Alien @ 9:
+ f’ing + So true.
DC’s the Fourth Circuit? That’s been reliably packed with GOPuke toadies for at least three years.
Reversed!
“faith” in one hand, pee in the other. which one gets damp?
woody, tokin librul @ 23:
It was a Bush appointee who ruled on it in the first place, and the judge says quite clearly that there is NO LAW OR CASE that supports it. They can’t easily gloss that over. It even cites direct Constitutional quote for Congress inalienable authority to subpoena anyone the fucking want.
God Dayamn, people! Do we have to taser ppl to get them back into activism on this site? We used to have so much more bite, so much less whine…
What now? We wait another 3 months to learn that its ‘off the table’ anyhow?
These assholes in office need to do their jobs now. No vacations, no raises no nothing- DO YOUR JOBS.
Circuit court doesn’t rule on law or evidence, it rules on procedure. there’s 15 judges, embank? i forget and am too lazy to search. anyway, it’s at least 9-6 gop appointees…and the 4th is convenient to the SCROTUS, doncha know…
Only checks and balances Pelosi cares about is her checking account balance.
Bates’s opinion is thorough and thoughtful, IMO.
I believe any superior court will uphold Bates’s reasoning.
Right frickin’ on! We’ve been waiting a long time for this… Now go get ‘em!!!
Congressional testimony just in time for the November election.
Not looking good for the GOP.
I hope the GOP goes the way of the DoDo. What a mess! I don’t think we will recover.
This is going to go to the Supreme Court and they will choose to hear it because, let’s face it, when have they ever turned away a George W. Bush case? They’ll hear this one and, most likely, will agree with the Bush administration.
Good luck with that. I so want to believe someone from this administration will be held accountable. I really do.
Don’t get your hopes up, the Bush regime will probably appeal this decision until they get it to a sympathetic, court stacked with far right ideologues.
The Bush administration can appeal the ruling. The Justice Department did not immediately respond for a request for comment.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._0731.html
I Like Pie @ 31:
If this is how Nancy planned it, she’s gonna look pretty smart…or is she…?
Here. You can pretend.
http://www.luxuryinstitute.com/
MsAnnaNOLA @ 18:
Soltz always uses that guy as a punching bag, and always great to watch. Yeah I agree, it’s a good clip to show.
DHavok @ 33:
Not quite, according to Glenn Greenwald, the SC ruled on this already in 1974. This WH would have to find some new precedent to even have the SC hear the case. Any appeals would take it to new Prez territory, and hopefully Obama will lift the veil.
at this point i’m interpreting this as “we’ll say september and hope nobody remembers when september rolls around.”
and when september rolls around, watch pelosi have a rationale for why it doesn’t happen.
i’ve stopped leaving pelosi messages on her “comment line” asking when impeachment hearings will begin, now i leave her messages asking when impeachment hearings will begin that include her and the other members of congress who have aided and abetted the bush administration in the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.
What the hell would Pelosi know about any of those things?
“So, what happens now?”
Nothing.
As usual.
I don’t expect much to come of this.
See no evil, speak no evil Pelosi isn’t interested in getting to the bottom of this:
Speaker Pelosi Declares That There is No Evidence of Any Crime by President Bush
http://jonathanturley.org/2008.....dent-bush/
Nothing, just the usual dog and pony show.
noen @ 44:
agreed
Barbara @ 4:
and this is exactly why pelosi would make an abominable choice by obama for v.p. as suggested on another thread. pelosi has no stomach to defend the constitution whatsoever. i’d have her out of government if at all possible she’s that much of an embarassment.
Oh geez, let’s get all excited again…
sassafra @ 46:
Moreover a weak kneed disgrace. BushCo torches the constitution and she fans the flames. I’m sooooo sick of her. San Francisco don’t you have anyone to run against this woman for God’s sake please!!!
Pelosi called it “very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances.”
So I take it old ‘Off the table’ Pelosi thought the ruling sucked eh?
put them all in jail. everybody in the bush white house should be thrown in jail.
So when exactly are these people going to jail?
Sound of crickets follows.