House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings

[Dos Equis]

"Bubblegum" =  Lacking substance, seems like a food but isnt.  In a sentance: " Can you walk and chew bubblegum at the same time"?  ...............Simple, devoid of nutrition.    = Beachbum.

lol . . .  What?  lol . . .  Whenever I read your posts this is what I think of:

[Straw Man]

That was one line from the article and one line from their argument to the court.  If that is their only argument, then yes it's weak.  I doubt that's their only argument. 

It's also the only line you highlighted when you posted the article.  It seemed as though you were suggesting it was a significant point.

[Dos Equis]

It is a significant point. 

[Straw Man]

It is a significant point. 

no it's not - I thought we were in agreement on that

[Dos Equis]

no it's not - I thought we were in agreement on that

No, we agree that if the only argument they have is that a court has never enforced a Congressional subpoena against the executive branch, then that's a weak argument. 

On the other hand, I believe the fact no court has ever done this is significant, particularly for this case.  They're not even investigating a crime.  And as the next two sentences in the article say:  "That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said."

In other words, the fact that no court has ever done this makes it less likely the court will want to do it now. 

[Straw Man]

No, we agree that if the only argument they have is that a court has never enforced a Congressional subpoena against the executive branch, then that's a weak argument. 

On the other hand, I believe the fact no court has ever done this is significant, particularly for this case.  They're not even investigating a crime.  And as the next two sentences in the article say:  "That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said."

In other words, the fact that no court has ever done this makes it less likely the court will want to do it now. 

how many times has "the court" (which one are we talking about again) been asked to do so and refused or rendered a decision in favor of the executive branch?

any info on that??

[Dos Equis]

how many times has "the court" (which one are we talking about again) been asked to do so and refused or rendered a decision in favor of the executive branch?

any info on that??

No idea.  We're talking about any federal court. 

[Straw Man]

No idea.  We're talking about any federal court. 

my point is that if there has never been a case presented and judged then it's a BULLSHIT argument to say that "the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify"

have they ever been presented with such a case and ruled that they don't have to testify or cannot testify?

If not, then it has no meaning

it's Bullshit

and I'm sure they know it

[Dos Equis]

my point is that if there has never been a case presented and judged then it's a BULLSHIT argument to say that "the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify"

have they ever been presented with such a case and ruled that they don't have to testify or cannot testify?

If not, then it has no meaning

it's Bullshit

and I'm sure they know it

No it isn't.  It's a fact, whether a court has been presented with the issue or not.  The fact a court has never been presented with the issue could mean it's something Congress never pursued because they knew it was a loser.  Or that, like the article discusses, this is something the executive and legislative branches should work through on their own. 

[tu_holmes]

Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.  

But that doesn't answer my question:  what specific law was broken?  What the heck are they investigating?  They should get back to investigating steroids in sports or something . . . .

If you get a subpoena, what will exempt you from showing up to  court?

Death?

I think that's about it... Either you or a lawyer must show up in your behalf to ask for a continuance so can eventually show up to court to answer whatever questions they may have.

[Dos Equis]

If you get a subpoena, what will exempt you from showing up to  court?

Death?

I think that's about it... Either you or a lawyer must show up in your behalf to ask for a continuance so can eventually show up to court to answer whatever questions they may have.

I think there are more reasons than death.  What if they give you a subpoena with only one day's notice to appear?

[tu_holmes]

I think there are more reasons than death.  What if they give you a subpoena with only one day's notice to appear?

You still have to show up... There is no excuse for not going to court. You must at least have counsel there to represent you and file a continuance on your behalf. You can't just say "Fuck it".

They will put a bench warrant out for you if you do.

[Dos Equis]

You still have to show up... There is no excuse for not going to court. You must at least have counsel there to represent you and file a continuance on your behalf. You can't just say "Fuck it".

They will put a bench warrant out for you if you do.

True, if a person simply doesn't show up there will be a warrant, contempt, etc.

Ever heard the term "quash"? 

[Straw Man]

True, if a person simply doesn't show up there will be a warrant, contempt, etc.

Ever heard the term "quash"? 

I'm sure we can both agree that David Addington is a person

yes/no?

[tu_holmes]

I'm sure we can both agree that David Addington is a person

yes/no?

I'd say yes..

[Dos Equis]

I'm sure we can both agree that David Addington is a person

yes/no?

O.K.  And?