General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe judge kicks the DOJ's butt in the McGahn subpoena case.
This result is unavoidable as a matter of basic constitutional law, as the Miers court recognized more than a decade ago. Today, this Court adds that this conclusion is inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law. That is to say, however busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires. Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth. Nor is the power of the Executive unfairly or improperly diminished when the Judiciary mandates adherence to the law and thus refuses to recognize a veto-like discretionary power of the President to cancel his subordinates legal obligations. To the contrary, when a duly authorized committee of Congress issues a valid subpoena to a current or former Executive branch official, and thereafter, a federal court determines that the subpoenaed official does, as a matter of law, have a duty to respond notwithstanding any contrary order of the President, the venerated constitutional principles that animate the structure of our government and undergird our most vital democratic institutions are preserved.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pRMwDMJQtUTt6I7i1LZJ5_XeERAeetvj/view
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,699 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,414 posts)Volaris
(10,274 posts)Ya, it seems the judiciary has to do exactly that.
And since trump IS completely an idiot, expect him to lose his shit and throw another Twitter Trantrum tomorrow morning regarding his 'education' in this matter lol
OhNo-Really
(3,985 posts)You just know he has authoritarian fantasies.
Wednesdays
(17,408 posts)"He's made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
chia
(2,244 posts)Thank you!
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)It seems like a rather important ruling.
She is forcing the Courts to take a stand, assuming it will be appealed? She rules that there is no absolute immunity. That it is unlawful to disobey a subpoena from a "duly authorized committee" of Congress.
She ruled that when, a duly authorized committee of Congress issues a subpoena to any present or former members of the Executive branch, they have a duty to respond, "notwithstanding any contrary order of the President."
In my opinion, it is a very balanced ruling. It adhered to the principle of equal branches of government.
bucolic_frolic
(43,286 posts)there would be no, and no need for, the Fifth Amendment
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)McGahn has to appear if supoenaed and can explain why if he considers some information to be privileged.
Of course trump doesnt want anyone appearing under oath for fear that they might inadvertently tell the truth.