What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

I tend to agree - a drop in the stock market is just those fat cat "globalists" losing money.  A lot of Trump voters don't exactly have a 401k to fall back on.

My sense of it as well. I am sure many care about the stock market, but almost in a totemic sense - a sign of whether things are good (because of Republicans) or bad (because of Democrats).

It is weird, when you think about it.

The reason to lower taxes on the ultra rich is that they will invest more in the local economy and therefore it will benefit the lower classes with paying jobs.  But if they lose a lot of money in the stock market, it will not affect the lower classes.

Oh, well, Republicans

[Zoupa]

I tend to agree - a drop in the stock market is just those fat cat "globalists" losing money.  A lot of Trump voters don't exactly have a 401k to fall back on.

My sense of it as well. I am sure many care about the stock market, but almost in a totemic sense - a sign of whether things are good (because of Republicans) or bad (because of Democrats).

It is weird, when you think about it.

The reason to lower taxes on the ultra rich is that they will invest more in the local economy and therefore it will benefit the lower classes with paying jobs.  But if they lose a lot of money in the stock market, it will not affect the lower classes.

Oh, well, Republicans

[viper37]

Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify

An appeals court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Trump's former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight.
n a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump's former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

On Mr. Trump's instructions, Mr. McGahn defied a House subpoena seeking to force him to testify about Mr. Trump's efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation. The House sued him, seeking a judicial order that he show up to testify, and won in district court in November.

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.

I thought it was the role of courts to interpret the limits of each government branch.

Minsky?

[The Minsky Moment]

Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify

An appeals court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Trump's former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight.
n a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump's former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

On Mr. Trump's instructions, Mr. McGahn defied a House subpoena seeking to force him to testify about Mr. Trump's efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation. The House sued him, seeking a judicial order that he show up to testify, and won in district court in November.

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.

I thought it was the rule of courts to interpret the limits of each government branch.

Minsky?

It was until February 28, 2020 when Judge Griffith decided it wasn't.

I don't know what to tell you.   Griffith actually says judicial intervention isn't needed because the House can redress contempt of its subpoena power through various institutional responses . . . like impeachment!

Of course this subpoena was brought in connection with a impeachment proceeding.  So the very power that Griffith thinks is supposed to be able to enforce subpoenas in the absence of a shy judiciary is being rendered ineffectual due to the fact that the House can't enforce subpoenas to gather evidence for impeachment.  But wait there's more.  Because the President's principal line of defense to the Second Article of impeachment (obstruction) was that the House should have sought judicial enforcement before impeaching, and that its failure to do so rendered the impeachment improper - an argument the majority of the Senate accepted.  And the second line of defense was the argument of Judge Starr(!)  and others that such offenses were not impeachable but should be subject to Congressional investigatory and subpoena power.

Kafka's Trial is a masterpiece of legal transparency and rationality compared to this reasoning.

[The Minsky Moment]

The decision is just a legal and doctrinal train wreck.  The opinion of the court confuses "case-and-controversy" standing doctrine with abstention doctrines relating to political questions or constitutional restraint.  The ostensible legal basis is that the House lacks standing to sue because there is no "case-and-controversy" - i.e. no concrete injury capable of redress.  That is patently absurd - the House issued a subpoena and the respondent blew them off.  That's about a clear text book case of legally redressable injury one can imagine. 

[Sheilbh]

If Congress can issue subpoenas on the executive branch, but they don't have standing to enforce them - then who does?

[Admiral Yi]

If Congress can issue subpoenas on the executive branch, but they don't have standing to enforce them - then who does?

The DOJ I believe.

[Razgovory]

I suspect the House will get its subpoena powers back when a Democrat is the White House.

[Sheilbh]

If Congress can issue subpoenas on the executive branch, but they don't have standing to enforce them - then who does?

The DOJ I believe.

So the legislature has the power to compel the executive to provide information, but it is presumably at the discretion of the executive to enforce that order and the legislature doesn't have standing?

[Admiral Yi]

So the legislature has the power to compel the executive to provide information, but it is presumably at the discretion of the executive to enforce that order and the legislature doesn't have standing?

That is my understanding.  It might even be more specific than just the DOJ.  It might be the federal prosecutor for the DC district.

Though I think there is a provision also for having the Congressional Sargeant at Arms execute the subpoena.

[Sheilbh]

That is my understanding.  It might even be more specific than just the DOJ.  It might be the federal prosecutor for the DC district.

Though I think there is a provision also for having the Congressional Sargeant at Arms execute the subpoena.

But presumably if Congress doesn't have standing they'd still need to ask the executive to enforce the subpoena they're trying to avoid?

[Admiral Yi]

But presumably if Congress doesn't have standing they'd still need to ask the executive to enforce the subpoena they're trying to avoid?

Yeah, unless they go the Sargeant at Arms route.  I think that's been done once.  Rounding up some reps that were preventing a quorum IIRC.

It's a critical flaw in the Constitution, and the one that the Special Prosecutor Law was supposed to address.

[Sheilbh]

But surely the Sargeant at Arms is there to enforce powers of Congress. So if they don't have standing to enforce a power, how would the Sergeant at Arms be able to enforce it?

Edit: Is it really a constitutional issue? Surely the power to issue subpoenas is just normal legislation?

[Admiral Yi]

But surely the Sargeant at Arms is there to enforce powers of Congress. So if they don't have standing to enforce a power, how would the Sergeant at Arms be able to enforce it?

Edit: Is it really a constitutional issue? Surely the power to issue subpoenas is just normal legislation?

My understanding is the case is about the power of Congress to petition the court to compel the DOJ to execute a subpoena.  And they said no, you can't bring this to the court into it because it's a political matter.

If the court had ruled that Congress can't issue subpeonas, that would have been a huge fucking deal.

[Admiral Yi]

Remember back in the Obama administration when various GOP controlled committees investigated Fast and Furious and, IIRC, Benghazi?  They issued a bunch of subpoenas and Holder just ignored them.