What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

Well, not zero - just very little.

They can always impeach.

The could, for example, impeach on the obstruction charge for refusing to honor a subpoena, *regardless* of the issue the subpoena itself is about.

I *think* this is what the court is saying. The remedy for the Executive refusing to honor a subpoena is impeachment.

[The Minsky Moment]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

I *think* this is what the court is saying. The remedy for the Executive refusing to honor a subpoena is impeachment.

But the Senate just said on the advice of Judge Starr that they won't impeach for failure to honor a subpoena because the House has the remedy of asking a court to enforce it.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

It Starr thinks this is the age of impeachment, wait and see what happens when every disagreement over the scope of a subpoena has to result in either Congress backing down with its tail between its legs or bringing out the big cannon of impeaching the President.

[dps]

The Court does not need to ask the executive to enforce its orders. The police should do so with or without the executives consent. 

Just out of curiosity, when our Canadian posters discuss the use of "the police" to enforce court orders, when we're talking about the US Federal government, what police force are you referring to?

I'm not asking what group or agency does have the task of enforcing Federal court orders--I know the answer to that question--I'm just wondering who you guys think it is.

[Berkut]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

I *think* this is what the court is saying. The remedy for the Executive refusing to honor a subpoena is impeachment.

But the Senate just said on the advice of Judge Starr that they won't impeach for failure to honor a subpoena because the House has the remedy of asking a court to enforce it.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

It Starr thinks this is the age of impeachment, wait and see what happens when every disagreement over the scope of a subpoena has to result in either Congress backing down with its tail between its legs or bringing out the big cannon of impeaching the President.

The Senate being a bunch of douchebags is a political problem though, not the Courts problem.

The Court can't change the law because the political reality is that the Republicans won't convict no matter what their Orange Cheeto does.

I'm not agreeing with their ruling, just trying to understand it.

[grumbler]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

I *think* this is what the court is saying. The remedy for the Executive refusing to honor a subpoena is impeachment.

But the Senate just said on the advice of Judge Starr that they won't impeach for failure to honor a subpoena because the House has the remedy of asking a court to enforce it.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

It Starr thinks this is the age of impeachment, wait and see what happens when every disagreement over the scope of a subpoena has to result in either Congress backing down with its tail between its legs or bringing out the big cannon of impeaching the President.

The Senate being a bunch of douchebags is a political problem though, not the Courts problem.

The Court can't change the law because the political reality is that the Republicans won't convict no matter what their Orange Cheeto does.

I'm not agreeing with their ruling, just trying to understand it.

The court was not asked to change a law, though, since there is no law regarding Congressional subpoenas.  Issuing such subpoenas has been an implied power of congress from the beginning, much like executive privilege is an implied power of the executive and judicial review an implied power of the judicial branch.  The courts are very much in the business of interpreting the Constitution.  They are not supposed to engage in this kind of politically-motivated judicial activism.  There isn't a person alive that thinks this ruling would have been the same had the partisan roles of the litigant and the defendant (but not the court) been reversed.

From what I understand of the case, the court is ruling that the Executive has absolute immunity against subpoenas from the Legislative Branch, subject only to the threat of impeachment.  That's the Trump Administration's argument in another similar case and I fear that this, barring an unlikely fit of conscience on the part of the USSC, will become the standard.  It is fundamentally against the entire basis of US government legitimacy.  The courts were established to, among other things, prevent the very Imperial Presidency that they are now abetting.  I can't think of  single justification for the ruling.

[crazy canuck]

The Court does not need to ask the executive to enforce its orders. The police should do so with or without the executives consent. 

Just out of curiosity, when our Canadian posters discuss the use of "the police" to enforce court orders, when we're talking about the US Federal government, what police force are you referring to?

I'm not asking what group or agency does have the task of enforcing Federal court orders--I know the answer to that question--I'm just wondering who you guys think it is.

The part you quoted was talking about Canada not the US.  Grumbler already told me that in the US the courts need to rely on the executive branch of government.

Not sure how your division of powers works if the executive can simply decide not to act against itself. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The US marshals service is the enforcement arm of the federal judiciary.  But the service itself is part of the Executive Branch.

[crazy canuck]

The US marshals service is the enforcement arm of the federal judiciary.  But the service itself is part of the Executive Branch.

Do they act independently?

[dps]

The US marshals service is the enforcement arm of the federal judiciary.  But the service itself is part of the Executive Branch.

Do they act independently?

Mostly, I think.  I believe that their movement to the DoJ back in the 60s was largely an administrative move (prior to that, each US District court hired and administered its own Marshalls).

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes and I am not aware of any issue concerning enforcing contempt orders on executive agencies - something that is not entirely uncommon. However, severe contempt sanctions like fines or imprisonment are very rare against officials - because usually the agencies don't let things go that far.  Those restraints may not hold anymore.

[crazy canuck]

It is remarkable that we are even considering that orders of the court might not be enforced.

[grumbler]

It is remarkable that we are even considering that orders of the court might not be enforced.

It is remarkable because people didn't recognize the danger of allowing the Federalist Society to control Republican judicial appointments.  It has apparently guaranteed the Trump Administration's immunity to impeachment.  It lacked the power to so protect the Shrubbery, though they got to that position by the end of his term.  The Society successfully held off President Obama's attempt to place a non-member on the USSC, and so achieved the decisive 5-member majority under Trump.

The Shrub talked about unlimited executive power, but only the Trump administration has achieved it.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, the system is no longer working as designed.

[Oexmelin]

If you think things are fine, and will be fine when the Dems take power, I'd suggest having a look at this, in the Atlantic :

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/04/how-to-destroy-a-government/606793/

[garbon]

If you think things are fine

Who are these people?