This is it right here, folks. The tipping point.

[smoogatz]

If bush is able to successfully quash the Rove and Meiers subpoenas, Congress will be essentially powerless to investigate him going forward. If the SCOTUS rules that the subpoenas are legal and proper and must be observed, then Bush and Cheney and the whole lot of them are toast. Let me say it again: Toast. Once again, the fate of the nation rests in the hands of the SCOTUS. What are the odds that they'll actually do the right thing, this time around?

[FuzzyDicePHL]

1. Not too high IMO

eom

[Atman]

2. "The fate of the nation rests in the hands of the SCOTUS."

Unfortunately, that's not a very comforting thought.

.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. *gulp* I am not reassured. The biggest problem here is that if the SCOTUS

quashes the subpoenas I do not think the uninformed masses will rise up over it. Indeed, at least 36% will crow with joy if that should happen.

[Warpy]

3. They appointed the little putz to an office he never deserved

and is not qualified for. I don't expect them to admit what a disaster they've brought to this country.

I don't expect them to do the right thing.

[Individualist]

16. and more reich wing now with Roberts and Alito

than they were in 2000. I'd be shocked if they did the right thing.

[The Doctor.]

57. There is precedent;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x461467

My only concerns on the SC are Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. I believe Roberts will follow the tradition of checks and balances.

Simply put, to rule that 'executive privilege' trumps all will establish a vital component for an actual American dictatorship.

[Kurovski]

60. I also have some faith in Roberts.(nt)

[cascadiance]

62. I still have concerns about Roberts too now...

... but seeing what Harriet Myers role in this mess was, in a way now I'm glad that Roberts (someone that Rehnquist annointed) was selected instead, or we really might have a big problem with the supremes in this situation, which likely was what Bushco was anticipating when they nominated her, hoping that the Dems would swallow her less "anti-choice" positions than other candidates he might have nominated. It definitely was a power play at the time.

There's a lot of things that I don't like about Rehnquist too, don't get me wrong. But he was a bit more "old school" in terms of his philosophies, and I'm hoping he wouldn't have nominated someone that would be a fascist protector like Myers might have been. He after all did abstain from rulings on corporate personhood in the past, that Thom Hartmann has reminded us with a number of his speeches, which showed to me that he had some degree of principles.

[Kurovski]

66. Thoughtful post.

And seeing the news these days--as you point out-- the attempt by George to get his Texas nanny, Myers, on the SC looks very much like the desperate attempt to stack the court that it likely was.

[Morgana LaFey]

78. IIRC, Roberts was chosen because of his belief in the unitary exec

concept -- or was that Alito? Or both?

I think the precedent with Clinton may help. I hope so.

[Le Taz Hot]

67. Precedent doesn't matter to this court.

Remember Bush v. Gore, 2000? When SCOTUS ruled for Bush in 2000 they stated that their ruling DID NOT SET PRECEDENCE. In the (then) 204-year history of SCOTUS, it was the first time EVER a ruling did not set precedence. After all, THAT is their job. Bugliosi wrote a great book about it back then (the title escapes me at the moment).

[MotorCityMan]

74. The Vincent Bugliosi book

None Dare Call It Treason; HIGHLY recommended

[pnorman]

76. "THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICA",

is the title. I can no longer find my hard copy (actually paperback), so I bought en etext version. It's in my cell-phone, and I'm looking at it right now. One of the major advantage of this form of book is the FIND function. With little difficulty, I was able to find the below quote by SCOTUS Justice Stevens:

"One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Write that down, and etch it into your brain!

pnorman

[TayTay]

4. The tipping point was Katrina

Everything has been downhill since then. This is the aftermath of the loss of faith that happened when Bush bungled the reponse to Katrina.

[Patiod]

56. I agree

it was the first time even conservatives & Republicans would admit that the emperor is nude

[Horse with no Name]

5. I'm not holding my breath

However, it is obvious that the Executive branch has usurped the power of the Judicial Branch by these firings.
IF the SCOTUS does not observe the subpoenas as being legal and proper, then the Executive branch will have usurped the Legislative Branch.
At that point, for the American citizen, it is Checkmate.

[shield20]

14. Except that the USA are of the EXECUTIVE Branch.

They are NOT of the Judiciary.

[melody]

15. exactly

The stacking of the Court has always been to bring about the fracturing of the country.

[John Q. Citizen]

It's not checkmate, it's a brand new game. Into the streets!

[shanti]

29. nah

they will have martial law for their checkmate.

[Hepburn]

59. IMO, you hit the nail on the head....

...loyalty to Bush is one thing ~~ corrupting criminal investigations is another. As judges, IMO, they are going to be offended with politics in the courtroom. At least I hope so.

[blm]

6. Depends on whether they see their own legacies now tied to Bush.

So, at this point, I'd have to give it a 60% to side with Bush.

[GeorgeGist]

70. Good point ...

on the other hand, they may see a chance to save their legacies by throwing Bush/Cheney under the bus.

[blm]

79. Heh - that's what I am hoping for with that 40% chance.

.

[NightWatcher]

7. SCOTUS is fixed

first they gave bush the Wh, next they will let him keeo it. We have no checks and balances outside of Congress. Pat Leahy, Chucky Shumer, and John Conyers need to fight hard for the future of the republlic. I have (and continue to) called them and told them this point exactly.

[wordpix]

11. Congress can impeach any gov. official for high crimes & misdemeanors---that goes for SCOTUS judges

I think.

[shadowknows69]

23. But how can we prove ruiling in favor of W is a crime

even though it really is.

[nolabels]

63. Have some more hearings maybe?

I cannot really remember any clauses in the Constitution about SCOTUS being able to recuse themselves from subpoena to testifying before congress

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. According to Tony Snow, the President has no recollection of being involved

in the decision. So, if he's not involved then he wasn't receiving advice. If he wasn't receiving advice, there should not be a cover of Executive Privilege.

[Xipe Totec]

10. Impeachement is always an option

and refusal to testify before Congress is contempt of Congress and sufficient reason to Impeach any member of the executive.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. It's Really the Best Option

I'm not a legal scholar, but I suspect that an impeachment would compel testimony from the Executive.

In any case, impeachment is the best option for a lot of other reasons. I only hope that the Republicans start the process soon - the Dems would never have the decency to do it, as it would narrow their options for craven triangulation.

[EVDebs]

26. Rep Kucinich, are you ready to introduce the motion ? Go for it now !

[southerncrone]

12. OH SHIT!

I have that sinking feeling again.
:scared:

[ClassWarrior]

13. Where do all these DUers get these crystal balls?

I wanna predict the future too!! :cry:

NGU.

[cassiepriam]

17. Congress might as well hand over the keys to * and go home.

[ClassWarrior]

25. Don't you just love these...

..."now that victory is within our grasp, give up" pity parties?

:eyes:

NGU.

[cassiepriam]

44. I have yet to see anyone who can stand up to Rove. Time will tell.

[Individualist]

32. They handed over the keys when they confirmed Roberts and Alito

[cassiepriam]

46. So far there has been much lip service. We shall see who can beat Rove at his own game.

[FogerRox]

18. Sarg at arms can arrest after a citation by congress

of Contempt of Congress. IIRC.

[smoogatz]

27. I don't think that's true.

I've been reading that contempt of congress charges are investigated and enforced by (drumroll please!)... the US attorney for Washington DC--a Bush appointee, of course.

[FogerRox]

73. its an alternative, IIRC I heard Thom Hartman refer to it.

[MGKrebs]

20. Did I miss something?

I think there is precedent for this. It shouldn't even get to the SCOTUS. Between Watergate and Whitewater it seems there is plenty of precedent for congressional authority for this.

[Virginia Dare]

28. That seems to me to likely be the case..

wasn't all of this sorted out when Clinton, his closest aides and even his secret service detail was compelled to testify under oath?
:shrug:

[smoogatz]

31. Different President, different Court.

This is an even more rightwing, Bush-beholden court than the one that ruled in favor of Cheney in the energy task-force case. There are some differences--that case, IIRC, hinged on some technicality about the boys from Exxon and Enron not being government employees and therefore not subject to FOIA. So we'll see. My own view is that since Gonzales and his staff have already blatantly perjured themselves before congress, the Supremes may feel that compelling Rove and Meiers to testify on the record and under oath is reasonable. But what the hell do I know?

[Virginia Dare]

33. Yes, I think that was a completely different case with Cheney..

and of course was complete bullshit too, but this case with Bush seems similar and even weaker than the one Clinton had in my view, but I'm like you, no lawyer or legal expert, so just speculation on my part.

[onenote]

42. each case is different, turning on its own facts

For example, US v Nixon involved subpoenas issued by a special prosecutor in a criminal case in which indictments had been handed down and where the documents would be reviewed "in camera" (i.e., in chambers, not in public) under the supervision of a federal district court judge. That's a different situation than subpoenas issued by a committee of congress in a matter that is not yet the subject of any criminal proceedings. The courts also tend to view executive privilege claims as presumptively valid where they relate to a core executive branch power, such as the power to appoint. The courts also look for the least intrusive alternative -- meaning that they prefer these things to be worked out without having to enforce a subpoena compelling sworn testimony.

That being said, there are good arguments on our side as well. The need for Congress to investigate allegations of obstruction of ongoing prosecutions; the fact that chimpy himself (and his spokeshenchpersons) have said he wasn't involved, which undercuts the assertion of the privilege as a means to protect his core decision making; the fact that the underlying inquiry implicates not just the executive and legislative branches, but also the integrity of the judicial process.

[MGKrebs]

37. Not only that, but we've also been down the road of

the SCOTUS making a ruling and saying it is not to be used as precedent (Bush v. Gore 2000) and I doubt anybody wants to go there again.

All roads lead to some serious erosion of support for Bush if he doesn't cooperate.

[deutsey]

21. They did so smashingly well in 2000

:puke:

[pampango]

22. One thing I'll give Bush credit for

is that this is the best issue for him to draw his stupid "line in the sand" over. Appointing and firing federal prosecutors, even for all of the wrong reasons, is not something that is going to rile up most Americans. He has the legal power to replace them, the issue is that his motivation is partisan and unethical. It is too "inside the Beltway."

Bush would be in more trouble if the fight over subpoenas dealt with an issue like prewar intelligence in making the case for the Iraq War, Republican corruption in the White House, Congress or with their corporate buddies, electoral fraud, or a host of other issues.

The SC would probably rule in his favor in any case, but without public clamor and the pressure of doing something for the overriding "public good", there is almost no chance that they will force him to comply with the subpoenas.

[loudsue]

43. The point is: Some dismissed attorneys were investigating REPUBLICANS

and dismissing them appears to be obstruction of justice. I say "appears" because we won't know until we get the testimony.

But the dems need to make the case in the media, or it's not going to go well for our side.

:kick::kick::kick:

[pampango]

52. That is a good point. The case will have to be made in the media

so that it is not perceived as too "inside the Beltway."

My point was that subpoenaing testimony from White House officials on the intelligence (or lack thereof) used to justify an unpopular and illegal war would have more of a "Wow, this is important" factor that could not be spun as "partisan, everyone does it" BS that will a PR tactic with these dismissed prosecutors.

[loudsue]

72. I agree with you 100%. The intelligence to go to war needs

to be on the table. I'd like to see them bring ALL of dictator-tot's crimes up for impeachment. The asshole needs to be under oath, testifying before congress.

:kick::kick::kick:

[EVDebs]

24. Pic somewhere showed SCOTUS in clown suits after Gore v. Bush ruling

Anyone seen that one ?

[napi21]

30. I actually have a fairly positive feeling that Shrub will lose this one

in the SCOTUS. There are two recent cases, US v Nixon and US v Clinton, where the SCOTUS ruled in against the Prez. It isquite unusual for the court to over-rule even one of their decisions, let alone two.

[Zenlitened]

34. SCOTUS has no say in whether Congress begins impeachment hearings.

As other DUers have noted, Congress decides what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress decides guilt or innocence. If Congress decides that failure to respond to subpoenas is enough to trigger impeachment hearings, SCOTUS can only sit back and watch the drama.

[smoogatz]

39. True enough.

But I'd personally rather see the testimony, and let Conyers and Waxman and Leahy build a comprehensive, iron-clad case that could actually compel 16 Republican Senators to vote to convict. I want this thing to be a stake not just through the heart of the Cheney/Bush presidency, but through the heart of the corporatist/theocrat right-wing and everything it stands for. I want Bush to go on on trial for two stolen elections, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, bankrupting the country, destroying the military, spying on millions of innocent Americans, tossing habeus corpus, trashing the Geneva Conventions, and hiding the truth about global warming. I want him to go on trial most of all for trying to assume the powers of a dictator or a king, and for subverting the constitution and the founding principles of democracy. Not just for ignoring a couple of subpoenas. No?

[Zenlitened]

50. Oh, I totally agree. I'd love to see it ALL laid out in plain sight...

... for everyone to see, and TRY to grasp the full horror of this misadministration. Because it just boggles the mind. The list of failures, lies, blunders and outright assaults on everything decent and good about America... it's endless. And if this subpoena issue can be the pebble that gets the landslide moving, I'm all for it.

[Virginia Dare]

45. True, and we really probably don't know all of the evidence

that they have. The fact that they are pursuing this as aggressively as they are makes me think that they've got a pretty strong case, with or without the testimony. I think at the very least Rove is gone, and it could very well mean the end of Bush as well, let's just hope they can get Cheney too, or we're fucked.

[meldroc]

35. If SCOTUS quashes those subpoenas and destroys Congress' oversight powers...

It would be time for the American people to assert its Second Amendment rights...

They want to declare martial law? They'd better be ready to enforce it. Because I'll be ready to assert my rights with lethal force...

[Initech]

36. If Rove testifies, they're fucked.

I bet that's why Bush has been doing everything possible to stop him from doing so.

[smoogatz]

41. Yep.

They can never, ever allow Rove to testify before Congress under oath and on the record. Every skeleton they've got is in Rove's closet--and we're talking SERIOUS skeletons here. If I was Rove, in fact, I'd be a little worried about my personal safety.

[Initech]

47. Rove's testimony will have the same impact Hermann Goering's did.

[Virginia Dare]

48. Probably why Bush referenced the "fishing expedition"...

getting Rove under oath in front of these guys scares the shit out of him.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

38. Time for Scalia and Cheney to go duck hunting again

so Scalia can refuse to recuse himself as he did on the issue of executive privilege in the Cheney Energy Task Force controversy and sum it all up the way he did before when he said: "Quack, Quack".

[smoogatz]

40. Scalia'd better watch where he stands.

And make sure Shotgun Dick doesn't get into the Wild Turkey 'til him and the dogs are out of birdshot range.

[loudsue]

49. I think Scalia is still a little pissed at shrub for appointing Roberts as Chief Justice

That position rightfully should have gone to Scalia, but what in the hell does the Dictator-Tot know about etiquette, propriety or precedence?

:kick::kick::kick:

[jazzjunkysue]

51. It's never the last chance. Even if these don't go through, how does it sound

when more subpoenas come down the pike over other things? Conyers and Waxman and Schumer and Leahy have all been making threats and I think they know it's time. I think a series of hearings and subpoenas will hurt them no matter what the scotus does about them.

This bunch refuses to tell the truth about anything to anyone. They're hiding. Period. They're not supposed to hide.

We've gotten so used to the criminality we forget what a white house is supposed to act like.

This is all good. Period. The GOP will not recover from this, no matter how many decisions come down in their favor.

[Nightjock]

53. I will give the court ONE more chance

They don't deserve it. But they have taken a small amount of heat over handing bush the (s)election in 2000.

[cascadiance]

54. Congress CAN impeach SCOTUS judges too BTW!

And I think THIS TIME would be the right time to consider that action, if it appears SCOTUS is ruling in a way that is inconsistent with past justices in a "judicial activist" way to protect the president.

And if we impeach judges, it might be a litmus test for congress on how they ultimately would be doing impeachments of Bushco too!

[redqueen]

58. I like the way you think.

:thumbsup:

[cascadiance]

61. Though congress has to be careful how they might telegraph this...

... since they don't want to be accused of using intimidation in the same fashion that Bushco has been using on the attorneys that has created this mess to start with, it might not hurt to find some way to remind the SCOTUS of this possibility happening, and to have some way that congress can communicate that they might go this route (and perhaps outline where they might rule in this fashion) to make sure that SCOTUS rules properly in terms of following the laws and not following what Bushco asks them to do.

Perhaps we need to outline all possible reasons that SCOTUS might have to rule in Bush's favor (and not overturn Bush's executive order). If we can document legal arguments supported by historical cases against each way of this being ruled, we can make sure that these arguments get aired publicly and widely so that the American public can see where SCOTUS would be ruling improperly if they ruled in certain "expected" ways. Do it in a respectful manner, so as not to make them obstinate and feeling threatened, but make it so that if they try to have contrived reasons to rule for Bushco, that they do it at their own peril. And remind them that the consequences of such could also tip the balance of the supreme court, depending on the ultimate resolution of events that might even lead to Bush and Cheney's impeachment and a Democrat appointing their replacements. If that cost is put in front of them, perhaps they'd think twice and thrice before ruling for Bushco!

[lebkuchen]

55. If SCOTUS pulled Bush's ass out of the fire again,

I do believe SCOTUS would "bring on" a coup d'état.

[Arugula Latte]

68. Scalia will just go around the country telling people to "get over it."

Like he does now ...

The fact that that evil bastard is still going around scolding people makes me think it bothers him that there is still so much lingering resentment over the 2000 Bush-Baker coup d'etat

[lebkuchen]

71. Bush is castigating the troops themselves for not having the courage for "the surge"

Once stateside Americans realize that the troops 1) are worn out, 2) don't want to be deployed again, let alone extended or stop-lossed, and 3) think Bush and the Iraq War is full of it, then it becomes clear who Bush is talking to when he taunts them with "courage" comments from cushy Camp David.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

81. Call it the SCROTUS: Supreme Court Republicans of the United States

But I certainly hope I'm wrong and that they are not going to screw the People again.

[AlinPA]

64. Zero. nt.

[stirlingsliver]

65. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Pigs will fly before the SCOTUS does the right thing.

[Vinca]

69. This is the problem. The court is packed with "Bushies." nt

[here_is_to_hope]

75. while I believe in the best...

I am prepared for the worst.

[WinkyDink]

77. I'm hoping some will view this as their prayed-for redemption moment.

To think of their OWN legacy, and not Bush's.

[windbreeze]

80. IF they don't....

then something dire needs to happen...this country should go straight up in protest...* does NOT have the right to say those he appoints do not have to answer for their actions..NONE of them do..HE/THEY work for US...they seem to have forgotten that...perhaps WE need to refresh their memories...
windbreeze