Bush steps up fight over congressional authority

[sabra]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is raising the stakes in a court fight that could change the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday that they will soon ask a federal appeals court not to force the president's top advisers to comply with congressional subpoenas next month. President Bush argues Congress doesn't have the authority to demand information from his aides.

U.S. District Judge John Bates strongly rejected that stance last month, ordering former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to turn over documents related to the firing of federal prosecutors.

It was a historic loss for the Bush administration, a stinging ruling in the first such case ever to make it to the courts.

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq-4ZBiiUcq8IsbGQ0SHW04WS4kgD92QNC4G0

[Stuart G]

1. A perfect addict. Gets some power, well that is not enough...

more, more, more, more..............push the limits, then more....

[bdamomma]

4. they will keep on pushing their agenda until someone or somebody

pushes them back. These people are ruthless criminals.

[seafan]

6. David Addington: “We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.”

David Addington: “We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.”


How right you are, alyce douglas.

[bdamomma]

32. are we that larger force???

I only hope so in a way if it comes down to it.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Who appointed the judges on the federal appeals court? Only 4 were appointed by

Democratic presidents.... the rest are from Ronnie, Poppy, and W. This is the same appeals court that overturned the District's gun ban.


Judges

David B. Sentelle, Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg
Karen LeCraft Henderson
A. Raymond Randolph
Judith W. Rogers - Clinton appointee
David S. Tatel - Clinton appointee
Merrick B. Garland - Clinton appointee
Janice Rogers Brown
Thomas B. Griffith
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Harry T. Edwards - Carter appointee
Laurence H. Silberman
Stephen F. Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit#Current_composition_of_the_court

[AlbertCat]

3. How come...

... it was alright to have everyone and their pets of the Clinton Administration comply, but now it's just an unthinkable outrage? Alas, Bushies....and GOP....you made your bed, now lie in it. (You're use to lying.)

And endless hours of "I don't recall" will not fly anymore either. That's been overused as much as McCain's POW card. This Tom Tomorrow cartoon sums it up:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/06/11/tomo/

[Supersedeas]

5. Mukasey's Doctrine of Selective Accountability -- Republicans are above the law?

[HowHasItComeToThis]

9. CAN AN AG SUE A PREDESSOR FOR MALFEASANCE

PLEASE TELL ME

[FormerOstrich]

7. I am confused...

I just read, yesterday, Judge John Bates ruled the administration could not delay. The article (link below) states he ruled on Tuesday (yesterday). Yet, this article mentions a ruling last month??

What's the real deal???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080826/pl_nm/usa_congress_bush_dc


fyi...this has been cross posted into GD :-)

[vssmith]

8. Republicans forget that all this power that has been absorbed by

the executive branch may soon be inherited by a Democrat President.

[Bandit]

26. They didn't forget

As soon as a Democrat takes office they will do a hard right turn and demand Congress gets to go after them in any form they wish.. They did that with Clinton and no one called them on it and they will do it with the next Democratic President. NO ONE ever calls them on their bull shit...

[vssmith]

31. Then the Dems have to grow some nads

[DogPoundPup]

10. Bush steps up fight over balance of power

Source: Herald Leader/ AP

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is raising the stakes in a court fight that could change the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday that they will soon ask a federal appeals court not to force the president's top advisers to comply with congressional subpoenas next month. President Bush argues that Congress doesn't have the authority to demand information from his aides.

U.S. District Judge John Bates strongly rejected that stance last month, ordering former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to turn over documents related to the firing of federal prosecutors.

It was a historic loss for the Bush administration, a stinging ruling in the first such case ever to make it to the courts.

The House Judiciary Committee responded swiftly, demanding Miers appear Sept. 11 as it investigates whether federal prosecutors were inappropriately fired as part of a White House effort to politicize the Justice Department.

The Bush administration had already indicated it would appeal, but Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday that they will ask the court to quickly put Miers' appearance on hold while the appeal plays out. It's a risky move for an administration that has spent years trying to strengthen the power of the presidency.

If the appeals court refuses to temporarily block the testimony, it would essentially be endorsing Bates' ruling against the Bush administration. Miers most likely would have to comply with the subpoena, setting a precedent that would give Congress new teeth in its investigations and weaken future presidents.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/216/story/505150.html

[skyounkin]

11. Man....

I wonder how the supremes will roll with this.....

[mcctatas]

13. I'm worried...

it sucks when your last line of defense against a corrupt administration is a rightward leaning group of life time appointees...

[DUlover2909]

19. It's actually in our favor that they are lifetime appointees.

There are 5 very reasonable judges, 2 less reasonable, and 2 more unreasonable, with Scalia and Thomas comprising the latter. I would predict a 5-4 decision against Bush in this case. Alito and Roberts will side with the dissenters because they know Kennedy is siding with the four others. I have a feeling that if Kennedy actually voted in favor of Bush, then Roberts would vote against Bush, since he seems to actually care more about the Constitution and the established rule of law.

[Igel]

27. There's a reason there's just about no precedent on this.

The courts usually stay out of executive/legislative power struggles, unless it's absolutely clear what the only interpretation of the Constitution can be.

It's a political thing, they've usually said. When it's criminal, when there's some point of legislation, etc., they rule. But politics ... they usually tell the two sides to hash out a deal lest the courts rule.

Then it's a question of who blinks first. Sometimes it's the executive, sometimes it's the legislative, and sometimes they sit and blink furiously at each other, sometimes they get up and leave the table in unison.

The gulf isn't dem/repub. It's exec./legislative.

The courts really get exercised when their powers are at issue.

[Mind_your_head]

12. Huh?

lickspittle

[JonLP24]

14. What an unconstitutional president

Congress doesn't have the authority? I guess he doesn't understand or give two shits about checks and balances.

[skyounkin]

15. LOL

why would he start now? I honestly can't blame him for pulling this crap, it's not like congress has done a damm thing to enforce it's power. It's like the parent who tells the kid to knock it off or there will be consequences, but in the end the kid doesn't knock it off and the parent doesn't do crap.

[Igel]

28. That's the root of the argument.

The constraints on Congress are few and muddied. Most of them aren't actually written.

If we think "co-equal", we have some fine exegesis to do. If we don't, we dispose of the "checks and balances" jargon.

SCOTUS has done some work in this regard, but it's carefully left most blatant political issues unresolved.

[orleans]

16. FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH

FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH FUCK BUSH ASSHOLE!!

[Loudmxr]

17. You didn't expect him to go softly into the night did you??

He will take this to the Supremes. :grr:

[Grinchie]

18. Hail to the Chimp!

Look out, he's about to throw feces at someone.

[Xipe Totec]

20. balance of power? How framed is that? n/t

[Gman]

21. Weaken future presidents??

THe asshat that wrote this story apparently isn't aware that this is a power no president ever had so there's nothing to weaken.

[judasdisney]

22. I almost want Bush to win. I'm so fucking sick of Democrats refusing to fight back.

[fasttense]

23. If the Supremes bothered to actually read the law

They would know that a previous Supreme Court had already ruled on this. That there is no need to rehash old law. But these Catholics on the Supremes are bought and paid for by the bushes, so I doubt they remember this:

"The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress).

The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident."

http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress

[JonLP24]

25. Thanks for the post

once again Bush is on the wrong side of history.

[Igel]

29. "Special prosecutor".

That makes it criminal, not legislative and purely political. It narrows the ruling, and makes it irrelevant (unless you can build a nice analogy that holds water).

Perhaps the Committee is going to bring charges and try the case as a *criminal* case? Then we have another big, hairy Constitutional issue.

[drm604]

24. WTF?

"change the balance of power"

"weaken future presidents"

Is this writer a paid toady or has he really bought into their distortions?

[zanne]

30. One of the reasons I suspect they'll be steaking the election again.

Why go to all the trouble of stengthening Executive Power privileges if he thinks a Democrat will take office in January?