First, thank you for this. It really is insightful! Second, Wait, what the fuck? Is he using his "originalism" to say that oversight isn't in the constitution and therefore the whole oversight game is wack? Or that no one really needs to be compelled to testify before committees for the specific purpose of drafting legislation? I'm really confused by this. It seems really far outside the mainstream even for him.Justice Thomas dissents, saying he doesn't think that Congress has the power to issue legislative subpoenas to a private individual, president or otherwise.
Not quite that far. He thinks that Congress shouldn't be able to subpoena private documents:I would hold that Congress has no power to issue a legislative subpoena for private, nonofficial documents—whether they belong to the President or not.
My impression is certainly that his view is not a mainstream one. Just look at the opinion: no one joined his dissent, which I think says a lot. It's worth remembering, though, that his viewpoint doesn't look at practical consequences (except when it does). In other words, the problem you speak about is a sign that the law should perhaps be changed through the proper channels (i.e. Congressional action of some kind), not the courts just applying a patch.
It's interesting to see the differentiation between "the president as president" and "the president as citizen", and good to know that there's at least some level of not being able to use presidential authority to influence personal court cases, at least in theory.
Yeah, and the Court even acknowledged in the NY case that it's a difficult distinction to draw.