Court Won't Force Testimony On Firings of U.S. Attorneys

[KeepItReal]

Source: Washington Post

A federal appeals court declined yesterday to order current and former White House aides to testify before a House committee about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, leaving the next Congress to decide how aggressively to pursue the constitutional showdown.
This Story

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the dispute over the role of politics in the 2006 dismissals would not be "fully and finally resolved" by the time the 110th Congress gives way.

So the court granted a delay in the case, pending the results of an appeal by former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and presidential chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten. The aides are contesting a July ruling by a lower court that ordered them to produce documents and testimony. They had asserted that lawmakers are intruding on President Bush's executive privilege.

The decision is a victory for the Bush administration, which for more than a year has fended off attempts by Democrats and the Justice Department's inspector general to trace the basis for the federal prosecutors' firings to the White House.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602521.html?hpid=moreheadlines

---

What is there to add? This is par for the course with Bush & Co.

They are popping a lot of champagne today.

p.s.

WaPo says this story is on page A19. They might as well put it in the classified section.

[Jefferson23]

1. I will admit it, after 8 years of this administration getting away with

almost everything imaginable, I feel like a beaten dog.

[blm]

5. I've been furious since Bush1's illegal operations were deep-sixed throughout the 90s, and leading

directly to the emergence of Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war.

And some very powerful Dems helped him escape accountability at every turn, right when investigations had BFEE at its most exposed and most vulnerable point. We cannot let it happen again, and must be watchful for a few powerful Dems who will work behind the scenes to protect the Bushes, just like they did throughout the 90s.

[crickets]

2. No, of course not. -nt

:eyes:

[Piewhacket]

3. More corruption. "Full and final resolution" is not a legal test...

its just more political corruption.

Whether its "full and final" is irrelevant. The ruling paralyzes
a sitting legislative body. It will not stand. It can't be the law.
It isn't the law. They know it.
Again they use a "power", not a "right". It is abuse of power.

So folks are going to have to dump some Federal Judges, that's obvious
And cut a few strings on "golden" parachutes too, if possible.
But its not like we didn't pretty much know that already.

The subject will arise again at a later time.
I'm sure DUers and others will rise to those appropriate occasions.
Not to far in the future.

[Piewhacket]

6. A link to the opinion..

for them who want to see a seriously dorked-down judicial opinion on an important
legal question. (it allows the USSC to ignore any appeal, evicerates the legislative power
and runs out the clock. we've seen this play before, yes?)

May I politely suggest:
mootness is relevent when it is *certain* the case will become moot during its pendency,
not when it "might". Especially in this case. In point of fact, this matter might be
fully resolved by Jan 20. Bad decision, but not "accidentally" bad. Opinion link below


Note: this is the opinion as a short pdf (56k bytes)
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200810/08-5357-1142234.pdf

Argued Before: GINSBURG, RANDOLPH and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/content/judges

[Supersedeas]

18. my thoughts too -- this is pure Mukasey style selective political justice

[AlbertCat]

4. So?

dispute over the role of politics in the 2006 dismissals would not be "fully and finally resolved" by the time the 110th Congress gives way.

So what? What does it matter if the 110th is around or not? This is a transparent excuse....not a ruling.

[jtrockville]

7. The subpoenas issued by the 110th congress expire

when the 110th congress adjournes.

Question: Does the ruling address what happens if the 111th congress issues the same subpoenas?

[Piewhacket]

8. deferred decision...

Q: Does the ruling address what happens if the 111th congress issues the same subpoenas?
A: No. (It specifically kicks that decision can down the proverbial road and into the twilight zone)

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200810/08-5357-1142234.pdf

[jtrockville]

9. Thank you for saving me the HOURS of reading

and re-reading a legal document to try and find that answer.
:)

[Piewhacket]

12. Welcome.

The opinion is written in supposed English, but a legal education is needed to
understand meaning and context, that is, assuming there IS any such
present to understand, which is not always the case, in which case
a VERY GOOD legal education may be needed to understand whether your side is the
shaftee or the shaftor,

which is, of course, of critical importance if one doesn't want to be the one
looking not only like a loser, but a STUPID loser as one proceeds to paste a big grin on
one's face and does a victory dance at the particularly inappropriate juncture.

Does one?


(just joking around. good question. happy to oblige.)

[Supersedeas]

10. another major victory for AG Mukasey who ran interference for his political handlers??

[Roland99]

11. Can someone enlighten this poor unfortunate soul?

Why does it matter about the 110th Congress?

[Piewhacket]

13. The subpoena (and any unresolved case) expires when 110 leaves office.

Theoretically, 111 may issue a citation, but most likely
will have to start over.

I disagree with the ruling, but hard to say what is best
for "our side".

For now, not to panic or lament overly, lets just go WIN!

28 days!

[tavalon]

15. Well, you know,

we aren't in the majority so we can't expect these things to go our way. Or, wait, it's that we don't have a supermajority, so we can't expect things to go our way or................something.

[Piewhacket]

17. Right, don't count on...

it going our way. MAKE IT SO! :thumbsup:
hey!

[OakCliffDem]

14. The courts are in Bush's pocket

We need to elect Obama to appoint liberal judges to bring the courts back on our side where they should be

[Doctor_J]

16. Obama & Biden need to make this an issue. Culture of corruption

"In an Obama/Biden administration, people who break the law will be fired and subject to the same penalties as ordinary citizens. The era of presidential lawlessness and immunity is over"