Contempt realism

Jim:

Conyers/Dems could go direct to inherent contempt. But it looks like they want to lay the foundation by having the DoJ refuse to prosecute first. Step by step seems to be the process.

The inherent contempt thing gets very messy if they vote contempt and send the Sgt. at Arms to the WH - undoubtedly to be refused access. If they don't send the Sgt. at Arms, the citation is just posturing that does nothing substantative.

On the other hand, Congress can't be eager to have a court intervene either because that will lead to appeals and the SCOTUS could conclude (5-4) that Bush's broad claims are legal or can't be litigated by the courts. Both results mean that Congress has permanently lost power unless the courts indicate that Congress could strengthen the law (or choose a different means of prosecuting the contempt - a special counsel for instance), which would mean overriding a Bush veto which is very unlikely.

Basically, if the Congress can't override a veto they are toothless and castrated (a bad combo even for a dog). This is the way a constitutional republic ends up being a autocracy, and we are on the road heading that direction. Lots of speed bumps along the way however.

My guess is that this doesn't get resolved in Bush's term of office. A stalemate. It would take a very unusual President after Bush to sign bills that weaken their office permanently.

I'm very pessimistic on this. I don't see a way to reign-in Bush since that would involve the Senate and House Republicans turning away from Bush, and they have already proved they like being enablers of Executive overreach.

Sadly this sounds all too likely. Messy or not, though, I think that if Democratic leaders really believe so much is at stake--both in the remaining months of the Bush presidency and looking forward to future imperial presidencies--then sending the Sergeant at Arms to the White House with handcuffs is actually the reasoned, prudent thing to do.