,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@BryanDawsonUSA Good question. Why is Congress using courts instead of jumping right to Inherent Contempt, which would let them jail or fine people directly? Several reasons,
1/
1/
@BryanDawsonUSA 1. Going straight to Inherent Contempt would be surrendering the court system to the Trump Reich. That's a bad precedent. (more on that below.)
2/
2/
@BryanDawsonUSA 2. If and when any part of this gets into the courts, Congress wants to be able to show a pattern of having done things in the way a court would view as the right way. That weighs in Congress' favor.
3/
3/
@BryanDawsonUSA 3. You don't use big bombers when a .45 will do the job. Courts are supposed to handle enforcement of subpoenas. Let hem do their job. Inherent Contempt is a Big Scary thing. Keep it in reserve to frighten people with.
4/
4/
@BryanDawsonUSA 4. You don't want to establish a precedent for Congress stomping as hard as it can as its first action. Inherent Contempt has hardly ever been invoked, and not since the 1930s. We want it to remain a last resort, not a first whim.
5/
5/
@BryanDawsonUSA 5. Congress doesn't even have a jail to put someone into. Last time (in the 1930s) Congress had to rent a luxury suite at a D.C. hotel. I'd rather they set up a contract with a federal prison, preferably one of the for-profit ones Republicans like so much.
6/6
6/6
