House panel agrees to temporary stay of Trump subpoena to allow Supreme Court to weigh in on financi

[onenote]

22. You are simply wrong.

And the House lawyers arguing this case wisely aren't making that argument.

Go read US v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974).

"In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others. The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Court, however, have unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison, supra at 177."

And Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962):

"Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."

And Powell v. McCormack, 395 US 486 (1969):

Our system of government "requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch."