"Executive Privilege" Asserted

[Elfdart]

Could they take it to a lower court, that is not so politically beholden to the Shrubites, and get a ruling, forcing SCOTUS to either uphold or strike it down (re: Contempt, obstruction, etc.)? Seems a little fracture could show where the weak spots are so the dems could hit it for MASSIVE DAMAGE.

At worst it would force the hands of some of the more rabid morons in office, and I guarantee such an underhanded and, dare I say, Republican-y tactic carried out by the dems would garner quite a bit of coverage from the press...

Cases like this get the fast lane to the Supreme Court.

[Durandal]

All of this, for the record, assumes that the various officers of the court (of whom Marshals and FBI agents are) would fail to obey a lawful summons order.

Of course they would. "Lawful summons orders" are unquestionable only for people like you and me. If you or I ever responded to a subpoena with "Well I won't give any testimony under oath, but I'll give you an off-the-record interview, take it or leave it," we'd be tossed in jail for contempt.

For politicians, they're just a song and dance. No one wants to "damage the psyche of the nation" by "dragging the president to jail" for contempt, even though that's precisely what this country needs.

[The Yosemite Bear]

this just in today, law enforcement appear to have performed a coup, in the united states. A spokesman for the US marshalls said that the seige at the white house is simply just a matter of arresting some people for contempt of court.

[CmdrWilkens]

All of this, for the record, assumes that the various officers of the court (of whom Marshals and FBI agents are) would fail to obey a lawful summons order.

Of course they would. "Lawful summons orders" are unquestionable only for people like you and me. If you or I ever responded to a subpoena with "Well I won't give any testimony under oath, but I'll give you an off-the-record interview, take it or leave it," we'd be tossed in jail for contempt.

For politicians, they're just a song and dance. No one wants to "damage the psyche of the nation" by "dragging the president to jail" for contempt, even though that's precisely what this country needs.

I think you don't give enough credit to the average person who is charged with enforcing said lawful orders. If Congress has the power to compel testimony and the courts agree then I can garuntee that all but the craziest of federal officers WILL enforce the decision of the court. Just as we've often mentioned that the President could pull an Andrew Jackson and order people to ignore court verdicts it is highly unlikely that the individuals charged with actually enforcing the court's order would comply with the President's order. Moreover if the President sought to defy a court order the last remnants of his party would desert him excepting the super fundies installed in the house by gerrymandered districts though not enough to avoid impeachment and removal were such a confrontation to take place.

[Durandal]

I think you don't give enough credit to the average person who is charged with enforcing said lawful orders.

I think you're underestimating the average person's ability to recognize matters "above his pay grade". I doubt that any US Marshall or FBI agent wants to be the guy who arrests the president for contempt for the simple reason that the legal process could very possibly shake out in the president's favor.

That's why I said that a subpoena is only binding for people like you and me. We can't really fight it, but the president of the United States sure as hell can, and he stands a damn good chance of winning that fight.

If Congress has the power to compel testimony and the courts agree then I can garuntee that all but the craziest of federal officers WILL enforce the decision of the court.

I just don't see it. Nor do I see the Secret Service allowing it even if said federal officer did go along with it. There'd be a potential confrontation between two federal agencies, and no one wants a shoot-out on the White House lawn.

Just as we've often mentioned that the President could pull an Andrew Jackson and order people to ignore court verdicts it is highly unlikely that the individuals charged with actually enforcing the court's order would comply with the President's order. Moreover if the President sought to defy a court order the last remnants of his party would desert him excepting the super fundies installed in the house by gerrymandered districts though not enough to avoid impeachment and removal were such a confrontation to take place.

He's already defied court orders, as have others in his administration. Nothing will happen here. Cheney won't testify under oath, no one will go to arrest his sorry ass, and this will just fade away when the Democrats' spine melts as it always does in these situations. All the Republicans have to do is pretend that they're offering an "acceptable compromise" (as if Congressional subpoenas are things that can be negotiated) long enough and the Democrats will start to worry about appearing to be obstructionists.