,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A number of folks have expressed doubt that any of this matters. In their view, officials currently defying Congress (and any judges who would uphold such defiance) will persist in doing so regardless of Congress's source of authority.
It seems fair to say that this view partakes of a more general nihilism about the the rule of law under Trump: the creeping, paralyzing sense that nothing matters anymore except partisan loyalty, tribal truth, and the will to power.
To be sure, that's certainly true of Trump and his die-hard allies. Rather than follow the law, these officials cynically assert that it cloaks them with powers that defy judicial review or congressional oversight, no matter how egregious their illegality and animus.
The result is rampant lawlessness within certain parts of the executive branch that masquerades behind a grotesque pretense of respect for legality. No wonder so many Americans finds themselves wondering if the rule of law means anything nowadays.
But however true it might be in some circumstances, that cynicism can be taken too far, both as an excuse for norm-destroying behavior by Trump's political opponents and as a descriptive account of how people actually make decisions. Sometimes, law really does matter.
If the House were to undertake impeachment proceedings, there may be some officials and judges who wouldn't budge an inch from their predispositions. But the notion that most or all officials would have that reaction is implausible.
For many government officials, there are shades of grey. Ideological, partisan, and personal predispositions are rarely absolute, and may be more likely to yield as the objective merit and political force of a contrary argument increases.
Impeachment is the mightiest of all legislative powers. It calls the Presidency itself into doubt. It unleashes extraordinary, disruptive political forces. And if invoked by the House, it might well change key officials' legal and political calculus in important ways.
I should emphasize: it may not change things for the better. As @tribelaw and I emphasize in our book, impeachments can backfire in unpredictable respects. The Clinton impeachment amped Bill Clinton's popularity to its highest level, while casting the GOP into disrepute.
In our hyper-partisan and deeply polarized landscape, rife with cultural dysfunction and distorted echo chambers, it is especially difficult to predict whether an impeachment will redound to the benefit of those who undertake it.
I'd also emphasize that there shouldn't be any need for Congress to invoke impeachment to engage in oversight. The House's subpoenas and other ongoing investigations are firmly rooted in its lawful authority, and Trump's massive resistance is blatantly anti-constitutional.
That all said, if the House were to initiate impeachment proceedings, and if it were to serve subpoenas pursuant to that power, judicial and executive branch decisionmaking processes would undoubtedly change in important ways ... maybe for the better and maybe for the worse.
