What are the issues that the Supreme Court will face when deciding the Senate subpoena of Karl Rove and others

Question

What I'm interested in is not the cheap shot that Bush should fry, or that the Democrats are overdoing it.

I'm looking for a simple legal analysis of the issues that the Supreme Court will balance in order to decide the case.

It seems to me like the battle is between executive privilege and prerogatives of Congress, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer. However - complete disclosure - I'm an attorney, and I just look at constitutional questions like this. Can you explain, or direct me to information about this issue? This is not an ideological question -- I'm just curious.

Answer 1

Congress has the power to issue subpoenas for Congressional investigations. See 2 USC 190m (enacted 1879) allowing subpoenas, and 2 USC 192 (enacted 1938), setting the penalties for ignoring a Congressional supoena.

Given how long those laws have been in place (70-130 years), and how often they've been used for a century, it's very unlikely the Supreme Court will determine that Congress doesn't have any power to issue subpoenas.

The only issue will be whether Executive Privilege can be used to completely ignore subpoenas, or if not, what the limits are to what falls under Executive Privilege.

So far, where executive privilege is in conflict with subpoena power, federal courts favor compelling testimony in most cases. See U. S. v. Tobin, 195 F.Supp. 588 (DC.Cir. 1961).

The alternative is that the Executive Branch is completely immune from the investigatory and regulatory of Congress, which defeats the entire concept of checks and balances.

Answer 2

What I don't understand is there has been no crime committed. The libs are on another witch hunt. And it's a shame that they are so petty and still so intent on getting rid of Bush and co. that they stoop to any level. They should be spending their time on real problems not wasting tax payers money on their personal vendetta. Janet Reno fired over 90 attorneys for political reasons and it was business as usual. And like some who have answered on here, they are falling into the hate Bush trap again. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. I know that's not the answer you were seeking but I had to say something.

Answer 3

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE EQUAL BRANCHES SHARING SOME SAME POWERS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP INFORMATION GIVEN TO HIM SECRET UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, OTHERWISE WHO WOULD GIVE HIM ADVICE IF IT CAN ALL BE TOLD TO CONGRSS. SO THE FIRST ISSUE IS SEPARATION OF POWERS.

BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO A PRESIDENT USISNG EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE, TO PROTECT HIS ADVISORS FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESSS

THJE EXCEPTION IS THAT IF THERE IS SUSPECTED CRIMIANL CONDUCT OR SOMEONE WHO IS BREAKING THE LAW TO ACCCOMPLISH A POLITICAL GOAL THEN CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT

HERE THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT ROVE KNOWS THE REAL REASONS 8 ASSISTANT US ATTORNIES WERE LET GO, FIRED BY GONZALES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

IF THEY WERE LET GO BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED DEMOCRATIC WRONG DOING, THAT IS USE HE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE DEMOCRRATS, THEN THAT IS THE WRONG USE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OWN INTERNAL GUIDELINES

DOES CONGRESSS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT US ATTORNIES AND THEIR REMOVAL FROM OFFIES,

THIS IS EVEN MORE SO SINCE THE US SENATE APPROVES THE APPOINTMENT OF US ATTORNIES INTHE VARIOUS STATES.

Answer 4

It's about time Karl Rove should be allowed to open his mouth under Oath. This rotten rogue is too full of lies and dirt to be believed in any defense he makes.