Followup on this thread. Topic self-explanatory. Answer, perhaps, imponderable. The Supreme Court has never rejected, nor unambiguously endorsed, the doctrine of executive privilege, still less has it ever delineated its boundaries and legitimate applications.
This “executive privelege” shtick didn’t work for Nixon, and it shouldn’t work for Bush. The president may have a privelege to withhold private personal information, but as Nixon found out, he doesn’t have the right to deny information to the congress that it wants, nor to say which pieces of information are relevant. May a bi-partisan congressional majority this time tell him no.
Nixon v. US is the lead case, and Burger did a great job of drawing a rather fuzzy line as clearly as possible IMO.
It’ll take a long time to get through the courts if Rove pushes it, likely until its mooting on 1/20/09, but meanwhile they’ll be bleeding daily - all over the next GOP nominee. Rove knows that, but may care more about his own pasty ass than his party.
Sure they can invoke executive privilege. The real question is if the WH does so, what is the counter-punch from Congress? Since we’re talking a fundamental question involving two out of the three branches of government, it’s going to end up in the courts. Bus as already stated, it’s a clear fuzzy line.
Don’t underestimate the point made by ElvisL1ves. How much blood is either side willing to spill in order to obtain a result from the courts? Congress as a whole will weather the carnage, but is the WH willing to have this run its course? Yes, Bush is no longer up for re-election but he is thinking of his legacy and his successor. Will logic and prudence win out or will ego block clear thinking on the part of Bush?
At this stage, I can see Bush cutting off his nose in spite of his face, and suffer the pain of a thousand cuts.
No, it won’t end up in the courts. U.S. v. Nixon wound up there, because that was the Special Prosecutor taking on Nixon.
When Congress takes on the President, it generally relies on its own inherent weapons, rather than cede authority to a third branch of government. And if it went to the courts, the courts would probably tell Congress to use its own powers to settle the matter, or not, as it chose.
The first likely counterpunch by Congress is a contempt of Congress charge, which can get the offender a year in prison, and is typically levied for refusal to testify before Congress. How you’d get there is: Rove refuses to comply with the House committee subpoena, then the House committee charges Rove with contempt of Congress, then the House as a whole votes to charge Rove with contempt of Congress.
The matter is then referred to an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who decides whether to refer the matter to a grand jury, which decides whether to indict. Since this is where things get within Alberto Gonzales’ reach, it could get rather interesting, but that would be the opening sequence.
I’ll have to vote on pasty ass. I doubt that much of anyone in DC would be willing to go to jail for any period of time.
Sadly, the Waffle House is powerless.
If they take it to the Supreme Court ,they might win. They were thinking way ahead when they stacked the court.
The White House not only CAN invoke executive privilege, it WILL invoke it.
Will it be successful is another question entirely. One which won’t be answered in the near future.
Then we must take this matter directly to the International House of Pancakes.
I usually roll my eyes at these types of comments, but this is really funny!
How can he invoke executive privilege if he claims that he had nothing to do with the decision?
Another point: Bush has already offered Miers and Rove to Congress, under unacceptable (to the committee leadership) conditions. Does that mean that he’s already waived executive privilege? How can you claim executive privilege if you’ve already offered to allow the aides you’re claiming exec priv for to speak to the committees?
Executive privilege means that they cannot be commanded to appear. The WH is certainly able to offer their appearance under condition.
And the WH can claim executive privilege because the people being subpoenaed are aides to the President, therefore can expect to be asked questions about discussions the President or others in the upper echelons of the Administration had regarding anything tangentially related, which would arguably be covered by the privilege. Indeed, one can assert that the mere fact these people are aides to the President alone establishes that they are covered by the concept of executive privilege, and could not be compelled to testify.
And yet, even at the height of BlowJobGate, Clinton did not invoke exec privilege. In fact, contrary to every talking point that’s been put out by the White House over this, there is no precedent whatsoever for “Presidential aides being exempt from Congressional testimony”. I wonder if the President realizes that the more he refuses such testimony, the more it looks like there might be an actual shady reason for him refusing this testimony…
And of course, we now have Tony Snow today claiming that Congress has no oversight powers. They’re flailing.
Because, as the Unitary Executive, he gets to decide what Executive Privledge means.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuh.
-Joe
I guess Tony Snow assumed that since Congress went six years without ever actually doing any oversight of this administration, these powers therefore no longer exist.
Is that the “Use it or lose it” doctrine of constitutional analysis?