House Judiciary Committee v. Don McGahn

[Belsnickel]

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf

This blurb on the case from taken from r/NeutralPolitics:

Quote:For a quick background, in May 2019, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Don McGahn, former White House Counsel, to compel testimony regarding “Trump’s efforts to impede former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that documented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.” McGahn defied the subpoena under the direction of the Trump Administration, which “argued both that senior presidential advisers are ‘absolutely immune’ from being forced to testify to Congress about official acts and that courts lack jurisdiction to resolve such disputes.”

The House Judiciary Committee sued in August, and the judge overseeing the case ruled that McGahn must testify in November. However, the decision was expectedly appealed, and on Friday, Feb. 28th, the Appeals court finally made their decision. The majority opinion effectively argued that the court “had no place in settling [disputes] between the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government” and that Congress has “ample but imperfect tools at its disposal."

So the question posed in that thread, and what I think would be interesting to discuss, here, is what this means for future disputes between the branches. Also, this thoroughly complicates some of the arguments that have taken place surrounding the impeachment. I do have to wonder if this will reach SCOTUS and if we will see a ruling on it at any point in the near future. I will be watching this much closer, now, as this ruling throws many things up in the air.

[*michaelsean*]

Gotta imagine they are going to at least try to get it to SCOTUS.

So I don’t have to look it up, exactly what powers are given to congress in the Constitution in this area.

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2020, 01:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Gotta imagine they are going to at least try to get it to SCOTUS.

So I don’t have to look it up, exactly what powers are given to congress in the Constitution in this area.

The opinion actually lays that out quite nicely:

Quote:Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers.

I mean, the public opinion one isn't really a constitutional power, but the rest all tie back to the authority granted Congress in the Constitution.

[Dill]

(03-03-2020, 12:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf

This blurb on the case from taken from r/NeutralPolitics:

So the question posed in that thread, and what I think would be interesting to discuss, here, is what this means for future disputes between the branches. Also, this thoroughly complicates some of the arguments that have taken place surrounding the impeachment. I do have to wonder if this will reach SCOTUS and if we will see a ruling on it at any point in the near future. I will be watching this much closer, now, as this ruling throws many things up in the air.

Yow. To me it seems like another "norm" has been broken (though I speak with only a superficial knowledge of the legal history here).

I don't agree with this ruling, but the court is right about one thing--Congress has ample means to shakedown the presidency.

Problem is, we, the people, don't normally want Congress to go to extremes like temporarily (? who can ever say for how long?) defunding programs the country may need. Nor does Congress.

Another complicating factor--the Republican party has become a regime party. That means Republicans in Congress no longer see themselves as a "check" on presidential power. They are beholden to their leader, dependent upon his good will as much or more as upon the good will of their constituents. So it will be harder and harder for Congress to exercise its power to hold up, defund, etc.

So to answer your question, I think it means that a president like Trump could/will push executive boundaries to the point that Congress will have to delay legislation, defund the president's favored programs, and/or block appoints to a degree we have never seen before, and which could paralyze government. 

If it doesn't get that far before Trump is out, it means that he, as chief exec, will for a time have more power than any other president in history (except Lincoln, during the Civil War and with most Democrats out of Congress).  More power to do damage, given his lack of understanding of government, inability to see consequences, and impulsive decision-making.