Laying the odds in executive privilege standoff

Q. Do the Democrats have legal precedents on their side to get a court to enforce a subpoena against presidential aides?

A. It is not clear whether they do. Even the most zealous member of the Democratic majority on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said last week, “the law is somewhat muddled on this. It is not very clear because not many cases have reached the courts…. It’s one of the least settled areas of the law.”

Q. In what jeopardy are Rove and others if they do not comply with the subpoena?

A. A person who refuses to testify risks being cited for contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or up a year in prison.

If the Senate or the House voted to cite Rove or another aide for contempt, the matter would be referred to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, for prosecution in federal district court in Washington D.C.

But it is possible that Bush could order Taylor to not proceed with the criminal referral and that might end the matter there.

Q. How has the Supreme Court handled executive privilege cases in recent years?

A. In its 2004 decision in a case involving the Sierra Club’s attempt to get documents from Vice President Cheney’s energy task force, the Supreme Court said the document pursuit was too intrusive on executive branch operations.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized “the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties.”

Q. Why are the courts likely to try to avoid getting involved in this dispute?

A. Justice Kennedy and the majority in the Cheney case in 2004 signaled that the court seeks to avoid these cases because they entangle the judiciary in political battles between the president and Congress.

“Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course,” Kennedy wrote.

“The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

Q. Do the president and Congress have an incentive to avoid a court battle?

A. Yes, according to Washington attorney Raymond Shepherd, the former chief counsel of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

A court battle could lead either to a Supreme Court ruling that greatly strengthened executive privilege so as to impair the power of Congress to oversee executive branch agencies, or to a ruling that so weakened executive privilege it that this president and future presidents would suffer.

“The stakes are so high that I really don’t think it is going to go to court,” said Shepherd. “Everybody seems to think that the two sides are so stubborn that they are going to force court action. I just don’t buy it. I think the stakes are too high. They’ll find some kind of compromise.”

Q. Will the battle continue until Bush has finished his presidency in January 2009?

A. That depends on whether the president and Congress choose to fight out in the courts, how quickly a court hears the case, and the length of the appeals.

But the likelihood of a protracted battle is one argument Republican senators are using to try to persuade Democrats that subpoenas are futile.

“If we have the confrontation (in court) we’re not going to get this information (about the firing of the federal prosecutors) for a very long time,” said ranking Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Arlen Specter. He cited a 1995 executive privilege case that wasn’t resolved until 1997.

Specter brushed off the threat of the Senate issuing subpoenas to Rove and others.

“The subpoenas do not have any meaning in a context where it will take two years to enforce them,” he said. “This matter will be before the next president, who may be a Democrat and he will open the files wide probably.”

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Report: Health bill would reduce senior care NYT: Obama eyes cost of Afghan decision In visit to China, Obama walks a tightrope Obama, Medvedev see progress on nuke pact   Clinton says Karzai ‘must do better’ Parties split on N.Y. trials of alleged terrorists Palin offers readers insight into '08 ups, downs Secretive front group battles health bill Chinese racist? Obama trip spurs talk Clinton ready to have coffee with Palin Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: