The decision is of course a bit more nuanced than any one headline. I'll quote a relevant portion of the Washington Post article on the subject, specifically with regard to the "rejecting the...
The decision is of course a bit more nuanced than any one headline. I'll quote a relevant portion of the Washington Post article on the subject, specifically with regard to the "rejecting the House bid" part:
The court reinforced Congress’s broad investigative power, but said it is not limitless and must be more targeted when it comes to subpoenas for a president’s personal information.
Without limits, the court warned, “Congress could declare open season on the President’s information held by schools, archives, internet service providers, e-mail clients, and financial institutions.”
The majority came up with a new four-part test for courts to analyze the validity of subpoenas aimed at the president.
Among other factors, the court said Congress cannot seek the president’s information as part of a case study for general legislation if other sources are available. Lawmakers also must narrow their requests and detail how the president’s information will advance possible legislation.
But even with the restrictions, the court rejected the administration’s view of how limited Congress’s inquiries may be.
“The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities,” the court said.
This seems like the right move. I certainly would not trust a Republican controlled House to subpoena, say, email records as part of a case study to consider overhauling some email laws. The thing to keep in mind with all Supreme Court cases is the precedent they set, and while this may set Congressional efforts back in the short term, it also limits them from being abused in the long term.
It sounds from this summary like a good way to split the baby. I wonder if gtounds exist under this rubric to form a valid subpoena for trump’s records?
It sounds from this summary like a good way to split the baby. I wonder if gtounds exist under this rubric to form a valid subpoena for trump’s records?
The decision is of course a bit more nuanced than any one headline. I'll quote a relevant portion of the Washington Post article on the subject, specifically with regard to the "rejecting the House bid" part:
This seems like the right move. I certainly would not trust a Republican controlled House to subpoena, say, email records as part of a case study to consider overhauling some email laws. The thing to keep in mind with all Supreme Court cases is the precedent they set, and while this may set Congressional efforts back in the short term, it also limits them from being abused in the long term.
It sounds from this summary like a good way to split the baby. I wonder if gtounds exist under this rubric to form a valid subpoena for trump’s records?
David Frum's analysis of the decision is pretty good: bad news for Trump the businessman in the long term, good news for candidate Trump.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-candidate-won-trump-man-lost/613960/