But this is a joke, right?

So, in keeping with the spirit of these comments, let me just say that all conservatives are too lazy to read what they're commenting on, and hide their ignorance by shifting attention to the specter of a demonic liberal media (despite constant empirical evidence to the contrary). Of course, we all know that's not true, but it's no less correct than saying all liberals make up civil rights issues or don't care about the country.

ull confidence that no one much would notice the contrary story (on page A03, of course) the next day.

Interesting, indeed, that we were only told about the Reagan precedent and not a similar one under Clinton.

From this morning's WaPo:

The Bush administration's vow this week to block contempt charges from Congress could prove to be a successful strategy for protecting White House documents about the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys, Democratic legal scholars and legislative aides said yesterday.

The experts cautioned that complaints by Democratic lawmakers about the administration's legal stance are undercut by a Justice Department legal opinion issued during the Clinton administration. It contended, as the Bush administration did this week, that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases in which a president has invoked executive privilege to withhold documents or testimony....

Walter E. Dellinger III, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department then, wrote in a 1995 legal opinion that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

That conclusion echoed a broader legal opinion issued 11 years earlier by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, who headed the OLC during the first term of the Reagan administration.

This is all PR. The Democratic leaders in Congress know, and have always known, that using the criminal contempt of Congress statute was a non-starter. This whole exercise was undertaken solely to get a big headline saying, "Bush claims to be above the law!" in the full confidence that no one much would notice the contrary story (on page A03, of course) the next day.

The risk isn't Bush defying a judicial order. The risk is the court granting him the power. I think it's pretty much what it looks like - an attempt to shift power from Congress to the White House through an expanded application of Executive Privilege.

As such it's not really a partisan issue, though circumstances immerse it in a partisan dispute, which serves as nice cover for the actual content.

But it really shouldn't be seen that way. It goes to how power is shared between the two branches without regard to who controls either. Fundamental governmental structure. If the Justice Department really doesn't have to cooperate with Congress on any executive privilege issue, then the options available to Congress are substantially reduced, and its power correspondingly reduced

Secondly, the DoJ firings have nothing at all to do with congress. It was all in the power of Bush to do what the heck he wants. End of story. That OTB would indicate otherwise in a continuing reminder of its' increasing irrelevance and liberal agenda.

Sad.

Bush, for example, is not especially interested in see civil rights cases prosecuted, but I can't imagine (although I could be wrong) that there have been no civil rights prosecutions (and the cancellation of existing cases) because Bush was elected.

What he has done to gut the civil rights division of DoJ is much more clever:

He started hiring inexperienced hacks for civil service jobs with no civil rights ligitgation background.

He had the division sue six states saying they had "too many voters" on the rolls--as part of the non-existent "voter fraud" scare concocted by Republican political operatives.

Fired any US Attorney's that chose to actually pursue legitimate case and fire those who didn't purse illegitimate cases.

I do think that there are legitimate reasons for presidents in the abstract to refuse to enforce contempt of Congress citations, for example when the demands of Congress that he's ordered ignored are purely political or fishing expeditions. Or if the demand of Congress is clearly unconstitutional. Are any of these true in this case? I'm not informed enough on the background to present an informed opinion.

With these and, probably, a few other exceptions, I think the President is obligated to enforce even distasteful and objectionable contempt of Congress citations. The alternative would seem to be for Congress to have its own independent police power and that would really have constitutional problems.

The case here is a specific order for the AG to ignore a specific law. It is made even worse, in my opinion, because it is self-serving and challenges what I would argue are clear constitutional authorities belonging to the Congress and responsibilities belonging to the President.

If that is acceptable, I am unsure how that would prevent the President for ordering the AG to not prosecute the next Duke Cunningham or whomever for whatever reason.

You took a long time to make your "axiomatic" point. Yes, the prez can do what he wants, and congress can choose to fight it or not. But a hard fight could severely damage one branch or the other. Of course, liberals only care about the here and now-and the country be damned. So maybe we will see a showdown.

By that logic the President could simply tell the DoJ to stop enforcing immigration law or drug law or anything else the Congress passes. Somehow I think that that would violate his Constitutional charge to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as per Article II.

Likely true in principle. Haven't presidents essentially done that, though? Surely, for example, the Clinton and Bush administrations had vastly different agendas on civil rights laws, going after violent union activities, violations of the Hyde Amendment, and so on and so forth.

A President Ron Paul would, presumably, all but stop enforcing drug laws. Certainly, he wouldn't go after prosecutions of medical marijuana cases.

Similarly, Steven Taylor entitles his post, “Bush to Congress: The DoJ Only Has to Prosecute the Laws that I Like.” But, ultimately, isn’t that always the case?

Well, yes and no. (Indeed, I expected someone to raise the issue). Certainly the President sets the agenda, through his appointments primarily, as to how the the DoJ will allocate resources and which areas of policies will be emphasized. However this is different than expressly ordering the DoJ to not enforce a specific law.

By that logic the President could simply tell the DoJ to stop enforcing immigration law or drug law or anything else the Congress passes. Somehow I think that that would violate his Constitutional charge to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as per Article II.

There is an important difference between emphasis in policy and selectively deciding which laws he will actively order be ignored.

(And I do recognize that we ultimately agree on the specific problems here).

Not to mention, going through the courts would pretty much end "The dictator is coming, the dictator is coming" alarm. True if the Court ruled against the administration and they still refused, the alarm would rise again but as we saw the Clinton, it isn't over until you get a real good handle on what "is" is. Which would probably take more than 15 months, which is the real deadline in all this.