No one could have predicted!

Bolton was the UN ambassador, Bolten the White House staffer.

...for our long national nightmare to come to an end. If nothing else, the Bush administration has taught us all patience. And that old adage about absolute power, too.

The Federal Court was telling Congress exactly how to get this done, if anyone in Congress had a brain, any guts or any cojones:

Alert the media.

Send out the Sergeant at Arms to Rove's house and Miers' house.

Drag them out of the house in handcuffs so the video can go on Youtube.

Put them in the Suburban and take them to the Hill.

Drag them into the House and put them in the cell in the basement of Congress.

For the judiciary to push back against abuses of power by the political branches... I'm just thankful they are fulfilling their function once again.

Pardon is equivalent to absolute privilege, isn't it?

I admire your optimism. None of them has testified, just like the 4 Supreme Court rulings against the illegal detentions has produced no freedom from detention.

This administration ignores the law, it doesn't just break it: Liberty is under siege. L'étendard sanglant est levé. Your choice on what you want to do about it.

I admire your optimism. None of them has testified,

That's why I said "little by little" -- I'm sure they'll show up . . . and refuse to answer most questions by asserting "privilege."

just like the 4 Supreme Court rulings against the illegal detentions has produced no freedom from detention.

Actually, that's not true. In Hamdi, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to provide some process to Yaser Hamdi if it wanted to continue to detain him, and rather than do so, it released him to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he relinquish his citizenship.

Moreover, none of those rulings ordered anyone to be free from detention. The one ruling that said that what the administration was doing was illegal -- Hamdan -- resulted in Congressional approval for military commissions. Congress bears as much blame as the administration.

So?

Now the ball is back in their court to drag these jokers out in front to testify.

I bet they were hoping the court would rule the aides had immunity so they could go back to merely whining about their refusal to testify, instead of doing something about it.

That's not my reaction. I'm guessing it's the Bushies...

As far as BushCo is concerned, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper, to be ignored when convenient. They're spoiled, undisciplined kids, always used to having their way and nobody has yet given them any reason to behave otherwise. Unless and until Congress actually starts arresting and impeaching these SOB's, they'll never change, no matter how many good rulings a bunch of "activist judges" make. Without enforcement, a law or court ruling is merely a suggestion. Yawn. Call me when Congress grows a spine, hauls Rove, Miers, and Gonzo to the stand in shackles, and stops treating "I don't recall" as a perfectly good answer.

One caveat about pronouncing Hamdi's case any kind of victory. Hamdi was deported to Saudi Arabia and forced to renounce his US citizenship (is that even legal?) and he cannot travel to large swaths of the Arab world. Moreover he is literally under constant observation in the not very democratic state of Saudi Arabia.

Flight 242 to Paraguay will be boarding shortly. Please have your boarding passes out and ready for inspection. Would passengers Myers and Bolton please come to the service desk. Passengers Myers and Bolton, please come to the service desk. Thank you for flying Paraguay Air.

And George W. Bush will be at home in Crawford, playing occasional golf in Austin. And the new President will have made a flock of new US Attorney appointments.

And so, like, wow.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121737320982594975.html

It's interesting to me that the Court disclaimed the possibility of requiring the Administration to develop a priv. log. Instead, they supposed to use Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45 as a guide, which might make for a lower standard. They can just deny the existence of something if they don't have to put it on a priv. log.

So is there any mechanism (Either the court or the bar) for sanctioning the attorneys responsible for taking these ludicrous arguments to the court? I can't think of any better evidence that an attorney acting in bad faith and against the duty of the candor to the tribunal than a judge who would usually be ideologically sympathetic writing the following:

The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple but critical fact bears repeating: the asserted immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors to not enjoy absolute immunity.

Good faith, and candor before the tribunal, and plain old human decency are all supposed to be prioritized above and beyond zealous representation.

Glenn,

In the wake of this federal court ruling, could you briefly summarize the legal options Congress possesses to enforce its subpoenas on Bolten, Miers, and Rove?

base them on some legal theory conjured from thin air and keep this matter before the courts and out of the committee until sometime in January 2009 when Bush issues the pre-emptive blanket pardons for all concerned. Between pardons for absolutely everyone appointed by the Bush administration and the new season of American Idol everything will be forgotten.

Now, Miers' and Bolten's lawyers can request more time to produce the "huge" amount of documents which have been requested.

Then, they'll claim the hold up was due to having to painstakingly examining those documents so they may redact large portions of the documents due to "national security".

Congressional Democrats will then respond with "Friendly Letter No. 242" giving them a few more weeks to respond.

After about 3 years, Congress will send "Friendly Letter No. 243" in which they threaten legal action to force compliance.

By now, we're into early 2012. Bolten will have been overcome by "Gonzo's Disease™" which afflicts the memory and causes large amounts of said memory to go "pffft!". Miers will, of course, will claim that the events in question are so long ago that she also has difficulty recalling exactly who did what to whom.

Congressional Democrats will then claim that to push the matter during an election year will hurt their chances of maintaining majority status and, hopefully, the White House.

All along, Obama will claim that he does not wish to interfere with Congress' absolute authority in these matters.

Am I close?