Opinion of the Court, concurring opinion and dissenting opinion in COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APPELLEE v. DONALD F. MCGAHN, II, APPELLANT.
Opinion of the Court by United States Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith.
Concurring opinion by United States Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson, who concurred in the final result but did not join in all of Griffith’s findings.
Dissenting opinion by United States Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers.
While the DC Circuit did NOT reach the merits of McGahn’s absolute immunity claim, two of the Judges, Henderson and Rogers, clearly found it implausible.
However, through a rather convoluted process, the panel majority reached the conclusion that the House subpoena is unenforceable.
I think this will go to en banc review and likely be reversed by 7 to 4 en banc.
Long standing precedent clearly points to a reversal.
I would not at all be surprised if Judge Rogers dissent does not become the en banc’s Opinion of the Court.
Well that pretty well torpedoes the articles of impeachment and the last three or four month of whining.
Impeachment is over.
And this covers an issue that goes FAR beyond the scope of impeachment.
In any event, this decision will certainly be reversed on en banc review.
Yes I read it, they ruled in his favor.
It may and then it will move up the ladder.
Did you then take into account Safiels interpretation?
And remember. Someday, a Democrat will again be in the White House.
A long term outlook would suggest you would not want that individual to have the same ability to engage in blanket stonewalling as you are suggesting Trump should have.
Anything Trump gets today, a future Democrat will have tomorrow.
I don’t want Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Warren, etc., etc., etc., to have the ability to blanket stonewall in the future, as I don’t want Trump to have that ability today. The only way to deny Presidents of the future this power is to fight Trump tooth and nail on it today.
I certainly hope this is reversed. This does not bode well at all for the separation of powers. The executive has been grabbing too much power for decades - and that has only gone on steroids under Trump. It is terrifying that a court would essentially grant the executive the power to rule by fiat. Reversal needs to happen up the ladder.
So the court is saying in (layman’s terms)…That the President doesn’t have to answer to any inquiries from the Congress?
Basically In a sense because they feel Congress has the tools already to deal with this and it’s not for the courts to weigh in.
You didnt read the opinion then.otherwise you wouldnt have said this
The executive is by far the weakest branch of government.
And Congress doesn’t have to give him any money.
Not true. We could let Trump get away with it and hammer the libs when it’s their turn to lie.
So…can Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler and Schiff now be prosecuted for wasting both the nation’s time and money?
It wasn’t a waste of time exposing Trump for his actions even though the Senate GOP majority failed to convict.
Just like it wasn’t a waste of taxpayer money to conduct 5-years of Clinton investigations and a DEM majority failed to convict at impeachment.
And no the House cannot be prosecuted for doing their job. The voters get to decide if they were happy or not with their actions.
The court decision says they were right to impeach. Impeachment is one if the tools available to congress when the administration defies a subpoena.
The whining by the GOP that the Dems didn’t exhaust their arguments in the courts was just disputed by the judges.