[CutePuppy]

Not necessarily, especially for non-activist judges. The whole point is that in the balance is an assertion of Constitutionally granted powers to two branches, and a judge would tip that balance to one branch and set precedent and potential for abuse. Clinton tried to abuse executive privilege to cover his personal misdeeds, and courts consistently overruled his use of it in those matters as inappropriate. This case goes specifically to the separation of powers, and judge, to his credit, understands what's at stake (even if he rules on narrow grounds) and does not really want to be involved and may just shelve it to run out the clock until next Congress (and next administration).

... Bates, "who participated in spirited arguments with both sides for nearly three hours, summed up the court's predicament, saying, 'Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance.'

[CharlesWayneCT]

But it seems he ruled like that because he wasn’t sure which side was constitutionally correct — which may be right in this case.

I was thinking more generally that if one side or another IS wrong, the courts are the only way to resolve it — like for example your citation of Clinton and Executive Privilege.

Does Congress really have the power to lock people up in their own jails? Where does that power come from? I hardly see where the judiciary gets the power to lock people up for contempt (where do you appeal when the judiciary takes enforcement action — can the President “pardon” a person being held for contempt?)

I’ve wandered off topic.