Why attack Conyers? It was a pair of Republican judges who made this ruling. This is comparable to other such rulings that hold that the American people must be shielded from any information that might inform their voting choices. And, it is comparable to the US Supreme Court ruling that allowing a recount of the Florida vote might present a hardship to George Bush. Repub judges rule as they please, laws and the Constitution are just impediments as far as they are concerned.

I hope the decision isn't reached until after Obama is inaugurated so that Bush can't pardon them.

"Even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the judicial branch ... before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009. At that time, the 110th House of Representatives will cease to exist as a legal entity, and the subpoenas it has issued will expire."

In other words, Congress cannot be party to a legal dispute that takes more than two years to resolve.

So, any time Congress takes you to court, all you have to figure out how to do is run out the clock.

This can't be accepted legal reasoning, can it? If this potentially sets a precedent, then it needs to be challenged.

Two quick points:
1) The more relevant precedent is the one that required Clinton to testify in the Gennifer Flowers sexual harassment case. If the bar for a government officer's testimony is set that low, the requirement for testimony in this case certainly meets that standard.

2) Pardoning these two, or anyone else, simply removes their argument against testifying, because they can't incriminate themselves. Then, if they still refuse, they can be charged with obstructing justice and be fined or sent away.

Without looking at the legal reasoning, does this make Congressional subpoenas in the last quarter of a Session merely oddly phrased invites ?

This certainly holds the force of precedent, unless the item is misreported, as it does not appear to be decided in summary fashion. Interestingly, future challenge to a more sympathetic Supreme Court will always be procedurally troublesome on grounds of mootness.
Think "Bakke".

We should all be aware that the Pardon Power is not so limited as implied. Future Congress's may very well compel appearance but the Executive power of pardon allows, for pardon of any of these for their acts.

Now, about progressive efforts to stop the appointment of Federalist Breakfast Club to the Appeals Courts, not challenging hard enough looks like a bad strategy by us and our compliant Democratic reps.

As much as we all would like to see justice in this matter, as soon as the next president takes office, these cases will fade into history.

That will suit the Republicans just fine as it gets them off the hook.

The excuses that the Democrats will use are;

"We have more important things to do;

"We must concentrate on rebuilding the economy",

"We must solve our problems in the Middle East",

"It's too late to prosecute anyone after the fact",

"We have helped the Republicans cover up the telecom spying affair,

We have refused to call into witness Sibel Edmonds,

We have to pass legislation that will put some controls back into our lending processes without impeding "free enterprise" (isn't that a joke?),

"We have to ...."

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Want to see the the testimony expedited?

Simple, just have the Sergeant at Arms arrest Ms. Meiers and escort her to appear before the Committee, as authorized by law.

As they say in Wasilla, that'd light a fire under their asses.

winoohno, I couldn't have said it better myself. I stopped making contributions to the DSCC a year ago - used to give regularly - and tell them every time they contact me that they get no more money until they dump Harry Reid and get someone with balls to run the Senate. I am so sick of the lack of courage of the Democrats.
I am absolutely going to vote for Obama, but from the very first my concern about him is that he sells himself as able to find compromises between differing parties. I am sooo tired of compromises (they all result in wins for the Republican). I'd really like a leader that leads. That explains why he/she is going to force through a solution, not compromises away from what he/she really wants.
Arggghhhh!

Executive privilege appears to be something but we will never know what because Conyers just didn't have quite the desire to find out. He is playing an old cheney game of keeping those he represents in the dark.