The conflict over the fired attorneys has escalated further now that the White House has claimed--apparently for the first time ever--that once the president invokes executive privilege Justice Department officials cannot pursue contempt charges filed by Congress.
Normally, the contempt citations issued by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton have to be issued by the attorney for the District of Columbia. Now he is being prevented from doing so.
The Washington Post cites David Rifkin, who worked as legal counsel to both Reagan and HW Bush praising the effort since it helps expand the "unitary executive," but others criticize it for the same reason. It makes the executive too powerful and violates the constitutionally established systems of checks and balances. Mark Rozell is cited as an expert who is opposed to this move.
Proponents point out that similar arguments were made in the Reagan Administration, but were not resolved in the courts. They almost certainly will be this time, but it's worth pointing out that among the people in the Reagan Department at the time of the previous conflict were John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both now on the Supreme Court and in a position to decide in favor if executive power. It may well be that this is a fight the Bush administration want to fight since it cause to believe that they have stacked the Supreme Court with Justices likely to agree with expanded executive power. Shows you what patience and discipline can accomplish. These guys are good.
The irony of course is that since the stars seem to be lined up in favor of the Democrats next year, the real beneficiary of executive power might well be a Democrat, maybe Hillary. So maybe these guts ain't so good after all.
The story also points out that the Congress was not told about this directly, but had to read about it in the media. Evidence perhaps of the contempt the current executive has for the legislative branch.
