4 ms·
On one hand, the aims of the politicos here are bald-facedly wrong. On the other hand, good luck with that whole "refusing a subpoena" thing - courts don't gen
by Karunamon 11y ago
On one hand, the aims of the politicos here are bald-facedly wrong.
On the other hand, good luck with that whole "refusing a subpoena" thing - courts don't generally look upon that with favor, and besides, NOAA is a public institution, so the emails are public record, regardless of the aims of the people seeking them.
Being in a contentious field is not free license to ignore the law, and it tends to make people think you're hiding something when you do this.
- tobltobs 11y agoFollowing your logic the emails of politicans should be public record also, shouldn't it? Who on the NOAA part does ignore a law? And if you don't let complete strangers in your house, do you hide something?
- Karunamon 11y agoOf course they should - at least the ones pertaining to their official duties. I do not understand your next two questions.
- joshkpeterson 11y agoBut breaking the law has a place in protest.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> On the other hand, good luck with that whole "refusing a subpoena" thing - courts don't generally look upon that with favor Courts generally (there are rare circumstances in which there are exceptions) aren't more than minimally involved in dealing with Congressional subpoenas to the executive branch, so how favorably they look on something generally is probably irrelevant here. Of course, Congress on its own can impose consequences if it so chooses, so there's that.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoYes. Congress has, in the past, sent U.S. Marshals out to physically arrest witnesses who refused to respond to a subpoena. That action was upheld by the Supreme Court, too.