Actually, congress doesn’t subpoena the executive. No President has ever been called to testify before congress. In fact, the constitution found this separation so important that it actually PROSCRIBES an event where the President actually does present information to Congress.
And no judge can haul a representative in front of the bench using a bench warrant, to find out what THEY were thinking when they passed a law.
And the cosntitution forbids the executive from using police powers to detain congressmen.
And there’s no rational purpose in trying to get the judges to “explain” themselves. The judges, as this article points out, already explain themselves in their ruling publications. All that this new power would do would be to allow representatives to ask questions and brow-beat judges into ruling more “correctly” — meaning however the majority currently in power wanted.
And if congress really is upset about a judge, they can impeach him. And it doesn’t take “2 out of 3” like Newt said — congress has the complete authority to remove any judge, and the President can do nothing. Congress also has the absolute authority to remove the President, without the judiciary having a say (the judiciary does “preside” over impeachment, but doesn’t rule).
The constitution has checks and balances. If congress can’t use them, we don’t need a presidential candidate proposing extra-constitutional harrassment authority that would be abused by liberals to destroy conservative judges.