Another ridiculous claim of the imperial idiot shot down by the courts

Miers must testify, and Bolton must turn over the requested documents. That was the decision of U.S. District Judge John Bates (appointed by this president) earlier today. An appeal by the administration is expected.

Congressional Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law. They swiftly announced that the Bush officials who have defied their subpoenas, including Bush's former top adviser Karl Rove, must appear as part of a probe of whether the White House directed the firings of nine federal prosecutors. Democrats announced plans to open hearings at the height of election season.

In his ruling Judge Bates found that there is no legal basis for Bush's argument.

"Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena," Bates wrote. He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all nonprivileged documents related to the firings.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances" and said the ruling applies as well to Rove, who like Miers and Bolten has been cited by the Judiciary Committee for contempt.

"This decision should send a clear signal to the Bush administration that it must cooperate fully with Congress and that former administration officials Harriet Miers and Karl Rove must testify before Congress," Pelosi said.

Tony Fratto, White House spokeshole, said that the decision was being reviewed and declined further comment.

The 93 page ruling was scathing in it's rejection of the arguments offered by the bu$h administration, and pointed out that the administration could not point to a single instance in case law to support their ridiculous assertions.

See you in court...

For the first time in history, the federal courts are charged with deciding whether or not congressional subpoenas of the executive branch shall be enforced. Think about that for a moment - for the first time in the history of our country, a presidential administration has been so obstinate and insistent that the rules don't apply to them that the House Judiciary Committee was forced to sue in the court system to have their constitutionally proscribed role upheld.

At issue is whether the administration can prevent White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton and former White House Council Harriet Miers from testifying before the committee about the U.S. Attorney purge scandal. The White House claims that executive privilege extends to the underlings of the executive.

John Bates, the U.S. District Judge was hesitant to grant the White House a right to defy Congressional subpoenas, but he also questioned the legal team representing the House as to whether the courts had the authority to intervene in the matter. "Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance," Bates said.

The committee's lawsuit is the first time in U.S. history that either chamber of Congress has sued the president to force compliance with a subpoena.

House counsel Irv B. Nathan argued that Bates should order Miers to testify and allow her to invoke executive privilege only on a question-by-question basis. He also urged the judge to force Bolten to provide a log of White House documents and to explain why each was being withheld.

"Congress needs the facts," Nathan argued, adding that the White House was "holding hostage the information" lawmakers require to fairly consider legislation and other measures in the wake of the U.S. attorney scandal.

Lawyers for the current occupant argue that if the White House is forced to comply with the law it will "fundamentally alter the separation of powers." The House found Miers and Bolten in contempt of Congress in February by a vote of 232 to 32 after they refused to turn over documents or testify about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in December 2006. The House judiciary committee has been investigating the controversial firings for a year and a half, and the controversy eventually brought down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was eventually forced to resign in disgrace.

Farm Bill Negotiations Continue

Occasionally, you stumble on a blog that does certain issues really well, and this looks like one of them. The Rural Blog points out that there are serious Farm Bill negotiations that are going to be taking place today. Essentially, there is disagreement between the House, Senate and the White House over how to reform or provide subsidies.

David Rogers learned the agriculture beat in Washington as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Now he writes for Politico, the political news outlet, but from time to time offers some of the best reporting on what's going on with the Farm Bill. He writes today that negotiators "are staring failure in the face, with a major deadline Friday, continued Democratic infighting and the commodity lobby’s stubborn resistance to altering an outdated subsidy system." Trade issues are also complicating the talks.

In his new role, Rogers is able to be more analytical and pointed, and he gigs the Bush administration: "Having raised the banner of reform, the White House appears to be playing the role of the spoiler, resisting even modest revenue-raisers accepted by House Republicans while refusing to come off the bench and pressure for some savings from direct payments to producers, now costing $5.2 billion a year even with today’s high crop prices."

The biggest stumbling blocks are the Senate's wish for an extra $4 billion in disaster aid, pushed by the National Farmers Union and other interests from the marginal, drought-sensitive row-crop region of the Dakotas and Montana, and $2.5 billion in tax breaks, including one for the horse industry. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told Rogers, “The tax package will not be in this farm bill. It ain’t going to happen, and the sooner the Senate realizes that, the better.” Peterson dropped the disaster provision in a compromise offer last week, infuriating Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Rogers reports. But Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has deeper problems with his House counterpart, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York, over Baucus' proposed revenue measures to pay for the disaster aid.

Peterson versus Baucus is really a Minnesota (corn and soybean agriculture) versus Montana (wheat and cattle agriculture) type dispute. I'm generalizing, of course, but there are competing interests at work. You have Southern California and Florida up against the interests of Iowa and Minnesota; you have tobacco growers against horse breeders.

A good place to sort all of this out is The Rural Blog, because I'm not the go-to guy on this stuff, to be honest with you.