Posted on 11/26/2019 7:27:11 PM PST by karpov
You may have read that a judge has ordered that Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, must testify in response to a Congressional subpoena. What you probably didn’t read in the impeachment press is that the sweeping ruling essentially eliminates a right to confidentiality between a President and his most senior advisers.
“The primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings,” wrote Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in a ruling late Monday that was hailed far and wide as a victory over President Trump’s claim that close advisers have immunity from testifying.
The judge doesn’t stop there. She embraces a doctrine of Congressional supremacy that essentially says that even the President’s closest advisers must appear on Capitol Hill more or less on command. “With respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist,” Judge Jackson writes.
These aides may be able to withhold some “confidential, classified, or privileged information” in the national interest. But that doesn’t protect advisers like the general counsel from appearing on Capitol Hill, under penalty of contempt, to respond to the priorities of the current Congressional majority.
You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to see the risks here. If advisers can be forced to appear before partisan opponents on demand, White House discussions are likely to become more circumspect. Presidents are likely to get less honest advice, and advisers will get less candid insight into a President’s views.
Judge Jackson’s 118-page opinion blows past these concerns and dismisses long-time Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos on adviser immunity as mere “aspirational assertions” about presidential power. This includes William Rehnquist’s 1971 OLC memo that has been relied on by Presidents of both parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Ruling should be IGNORED. Not issued by the Supreme Court.
Wrong. Read the Federalist papers, and Jefferson’s writings on the unitary executive. Or, just read AG Barr’s last opinion column on the unitary executive.
Corrupt judges should face more than just embarrassment.
I agree. I mean for a branch of government there is no oversite outside of the legislative branch for impeachment, and they know nothing ever happens with that (except Alice Hastings). As a result, they can rule contrary to their oath and outside of their limits of power. It’s time to get rid of life time appointments. There is nothing in the constitution that states that. It just says “good behavior” which should be literally interpreted as that. Behavior, not life time tenure. You behaved badly! You violated your oath! Here is the proof, your fired, Fock you!
“He said that they had to respond, to go there and sit in the chair. Executive privileged is still on the table, the judge did not remove that.”
Exactly. The goofballs in the press did not read past the 2nd page.
Ignore her.
Members of Congress are not above the law, either.
This will not stand.
I think this is such an unwarranted abrogation of Constitutional separation of powers and the office of the Presidency that outright defiance is in order.
No. Ketanji is a Commie Democrat judgebot, programmed to spit out pro-Democrat rulings.
#PartyBeforeJustice
In Canada and other members of the Commonwealth Realm, we used to say: “Parliament is Supreme”. Our executive is embedded in Parliament; so, that never meant the same in the U.S.A.
It meant that Parliament was the final authority. Then, in 1982, we revised our Constitution. Now, in effect, the Judiciary is supreme, because it can overturn laws passed by Parliament, and subordinate legislation passed by Cabinet.
If this isn't overturned on appeal, it may mark the beginning of a transition to a purely ceremonial role for the President. In the Commonwealth, the Queen is our Head of State — with weak, mainly ceremonial powers. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government, where political power is concentrated. You could wind up with Trump wearing kingly garments and cutting ribbons; while Nancy Pelosi is Head of Government, and wielding all the power (or, at least all that's not ceded to the SCOTUS)
Ignore the dirtbag
First off, who gives a f*ck what she says? Appeal her decision which will be overturned.
Or, just show up and advise Schiff that you’re invoking Executive Privilege and will be exercising your 5th Amendment rights as you cannot be compelled to answer any questions or make any statements.
Did the last occupant of the White House ever claim Executive Privilege?
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I think the “unitary executive” model simply means that the President has full authority over the executive branch of government. I wouldn’t argue with that point at all, because it’s true. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the President exerts any authority over the legislative branch of the U.S. government at all.
Ketanji Brown Jackson... Nothing else needs to be said...
One judge, soon overturned.
Do federal judges answer to Congress?
NO.
It is federal judges who act as though they are kings and queens.
The US Constitution is written on 4 (four) sheets, and if she needs 118 pages to make the argument, the chance that the argument is flawed is about 100%.
I enjoy your posts, but you gotta take the L on this one.
Buffoon? Yes Shameless? Absolutely Moron? Check Unqualified and only there because: black justice, female, no experience b/c that didn’t matter? Roger
But this decision will be overturned. She brings up 250yrs of history. That history sets a precedent that guys like McGahn don’t have to testify before anyone. And I would think that if he’s General Counsel/Lawyer, there should exist Attorney/Client Privilege. I know that went out the window with Cohen, but he was a willing participant trying to save his own butt.
There are some really sharp folks on this site and lots of them and, thankfully, they bring a lot to the table from all sorts of different angles. As long as they don’t get nasty and condescending, which they sometimes do, folks have the opportunity to learn a lot from some of the commenters.
Anywho.... I wonder if anyone in the White House, or someone else close to POTUS, gets on here, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc, to see what’s being bantered about and read some of these comments. Perhaps learn about a different angle of attack, so to speak.
Now it appears that the Dem’s, once again, have realized that they’ve fallen on their faces and are scrambling to salvage something from Schiff’s op.
In line with the information in your post, I just want to see two things:
1. A tweet from the President, calling out Schiff’s failure and then four simple words ...... My turn, Checkmate
2. The next morning announce that he is convening both houses of Congress and start dropping MOABs, all day long. Just have aides fill up tables with all the files of all their corruption, lies, and theft. Then, right when he’s about to walk out of the room, read the list of Congress-folks that used taxpayer dollars to settle sexual harassment claims.
Of course, if he did that, damn near every paramedic and emt in the greater DC area would have to be at the Capitol, as they all started stroking out and having heart attacks.
One can dream, can’t they?
They need to give these judges a free Pinochet helicopter ride.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.