The judge kicks the DOJ's butt in the McGahn subpoena case.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

...as far as the duty to appear is concerned, this Court holds that Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process—no matter how many times the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years—even if the President expressly directs such officials’ non-compliance.

This result is unavoidable as a matter of basic constitutional law, as the Miers court recognized more than a decade ago. Today, this Court adds that this conclusion is inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law. That is to say, however busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires. Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth. Nor is the power of the Executive unfairly or improperly diminished when the Judiciary mandates adherence to the law and thus refuses to recognize a veto-like discretionary power of the President to cancel his subordinates’ legal obligations. To the contrary, when a duly authorized committee of Congress issues a valid subpoena to a current or former Executive branch official, and thereafter, a federal court determines that the subpoenaed official does, as a matter of law, have a duty to respond notwithstanding any contrary order of the President, the venerated constitutional principles that animate the structure of our government and undergird our most vital democratic institutions are preserved.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pRMwDMJQtUTt6I7i1LZJ5_XeERAeetvj/view

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Damn right. We will preserve our most vital democratic institutions! n/t

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. the court should not have to deliver remedial education to the exec

[Volaris]

10. The executive happens to be a complete fucking idiot in this case, sooooo....

Ya, it seems the judiciary has to do exactly that.
And since trump IS completely an idiot, expect him to lose his shit and throw another Twitter Trantrum tomorrow morning regarding his 'education' in this matter lol

[OhNo-Really]

3. Champagne 🥂 What will Buzzkill Barr Do Next? His Dream Coup?

You just know he has authoritarian fantasies.

[Wednesdays]

4. He'll do an Andy Jackson

"He's made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

[chia]

5. I needed encouragement like this today!

Thank you!

[Pepsidog]

6. Ka-Boom orange turd.

[kentuck]

7. "...a legal construct, not a political one, ..."

It seems like a rather important ruling.

She is forcing the Courts to take a stand, assuming it will be appealed? She rules that there is no absolute immunity. That it is unlawful to disobey a subpoena from a "duly authorized committee" of Congress.

She ruled that when, a duly authorized committee of Congress issues a subpoena to any present or former members of the Executive branch, they have a duty to respond, "notwithstanding any contrary order of the President."

In my opinion, it is a very balanced ruling. It adhered to the principle of equal branches of government.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. If subpoenas were not to be honored

there would be no, and no need for, the Fifth Amendment

[Kablooie]

9. What he said is reasonable

McGahn has to appear if supoenaed and can explain why if he considers some information to be privileged.

Of course trump doesn’t want anyone appearing under oath for fear that they might inadvertently tell the truth.