True or False: we are heading for a Constitutional crisis of Nixonian magnitude.

[MnFats]

People who were in Washington in 1974 said it was downright eerie.
They say there was a definite pall over D.C. as people waited to see if Nixon would give up the tapes, knowing that he would probably be toast if he did.

It's said that if the Supreme Court was split on the tapes Nixon might cling to the words of one of the justices on his side and refuse to hand them over.
and then you'd be in a position of having to arrest the president of the U.S. for contempt of Congress.
Tanks rolling down the streets in the nation's capital?

Fortunately, the S.C. decision was unanimous, even the justices he appointed gave him no wiggle room at all. he was finished.

oh, i'm just hyperventilating i'm sure. nothing to this A.G. scandal. no big deal if Bush refuses to send his lackeys down to testify.
nothing to see here... move on please.

[MistressOverdone]

1. It sometimes seems that January, 2009, will never come. n/t

[Raven]

2. Nope...

they haven't got the guts or a case and we have the facts. The fact that Bush offered their testimony at all says to me that they will buckle...probably offer a few people up in sacrifice, but buckle nonetheless.

[MnFats]

3. yeah, but Nixon tried to wriggle out of it too...

..first with 'edited transcripts' that were recognized as bullshit from the word go.

then he was going to have a couple friendly senators come to the white house and listen to them. Knowing, of course, that they'd give a favorable review....finally came the decision...

[tulsakatz]

11. good point!

remember how long it took them to agree to talk to the 9/11 commission?

[ShortnFiery]

4. They better! If our Democratic Representatives once again fold like cheap suits ...

I may be inclined to work with Vote Out Incumbents Democracy. :wow:

http://www.voidnow.org

It's time, hell, it's beyond time that our Democratic Representatives treasure serving their constituents as much as they are trying to ENSURE a career within an elected seat.

Never Forget - THEY work for US! ;)

[PhilipShore]

5. False

[1monster]

6. I think if it comes to confrontation, the Constitutional crisis will make

the Watergate months seem like one of these next to one of these

[sofa king]

7. False: we passed that point in 2002.

Archibald Cox was the only US attorney Nixon had to fire to try to protect investigation of his criminal deeds. These guys are up to about ten now, with new dismissals being brought into the limelight any day.

How many elections did Nixon have to steal? One. Bush stole his second in 2004. How many airplanes did Nixon have to crash to silence witnesses get what he wanted? One, United 533. Bush sent down four in one day, not to mention Paul Wellstone's plane.

Just you wait and see, when the walls really start closing in on these guys, they're going to show themselves for what they really are: a bunch of ruthless gangsters willing to stop at nothing to realize their lust for power.

[creeksneakers2]

8. I don't know how far it will go

but I don't believe Bush will ever back down. Neither should the Democrats. If the courts say executive privilege doesn't apply, and Bush still refuses to cooperate, and no enforcement authority takes Bush into custody, then we can hope to take the presidency in 2009, then prosecute Bush and the rest of them.

[MGKrebs]

9. I don't think it will go that far.

Repubs in Congress seem to be encouraging the admin to come clean on this. If Bush continues to resist, I think, especially because everyone is aware of the history, Repubs will go to him and say the jig is up before he does something really stupid. Why does he even need Rove anymore anyway? Just another pardon candidate.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

10. I think we'll have a deeply divided court

I'm not sure how it will shake itself out, but Scalia and Thomas no doubt will find some reason not to follow precedent. I can't predict how the new appointees will rule. It might help at this point to actually know the argument. This Supreme Court doesn't want to rule on executive privilege. On the Cheney Energy Task Force controversy, when executive privilege was raised by the White House, the Supremes decided to refrain from getting involved and they sent the case back to a lower court. Scalia, however, later commented on the fact that he would side with the White House on executive privilege under almost any circumstance.

By the way, for some strange reason, old photos of Nixon and Angnew seem to be spontaneously morphing before our eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

12. False

this isn't yet a constitutional crisis - it's a standard battle.

As much as nobody wants to hear it, the most likely outcome of this will be a compromise that pisses off both sides. Neither side really wants this to go to court. US v Nixon isn't really the precedent involved, as that was about turning over evidence to a Special Prosecutor investigating a crime. So nobody knows what the court would do, and I'm not sure either side is all that eager to find out.