Some were, and based on the timeline provided by the District Court it was clear that it would be nearly impossible for the matter to be resolved expediently. i.e.: before the next election, which the President was alleged to have abused his power to interfere in. It would rely on Congress trusting that the Supreme Court would deviate extraordinarily from its normal process and decide a matter in a very short time.

And on top of this, Congress has the power to grant subpoenas. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right since the 19th Century and it's absurd that defenders of the President keep insisting that every subpoena must be fought in court, all the way up to final appeal, in order to be valid. That is expressly not what Courts have said in the past. See: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/cases-and-controversies-c...

The Supreme Court will deviate extraordinarily from its normal process and decide a matter in a very short time when national politics are at stake. For example see Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The whole case took only a few weeks, and the court delivered its decision just one day after oral arguments.

"We don't know who's about to be President in a month" is a fairly uniquely urgent scenario that doesn't apply here, though.

Dahlia Lithwick described how the courts are intentionally making the political choice to slow-walk various Trump matters in order to enable his behavior:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/courts-slow-trum...

I guess if Congress isn't happy with the outcome, they can just impeach the president... Woops!

Sucks when the other party uses the rules against you.

If you believe you're being attacked by politically motivated partisans, it's your duty to obstruct them by whatever lawful or procedural means available.

It's all just a dog and pony show anyway. The news just want to drum up advertising because they're a dying media. The best way they have found to do that is click-bait political fighting.

Congress' unprecedented barrage of subpoenas force the administration's hand here. You may find it "absurd", but unprecedented animus requires unprecedented defensive measures.

> Congress' unprecedented barrage of subpoenas force the administration's hand here. You may find it "absurd", but unprecedented animus requires unprecedented defensive measures.

Not sure where in the Constitution this appears...

The administration's use of legal defensive measures is not itself illegal or prohibited by the Constitution.

Claiming that congress doesn't have subpoena powers and everything needs to be taken to Supreme court is not "legal defensive measures". That is the only thing that matters to this sub-thread here. Remember, it is only a while ago that the tables were turned and republicans were happy to claim then President Clinton did not have any powers to defend.

Because they'd be stuck there for years.

This emoluments suit has been going since 2017 and got tossed on appeal via a technicality instead of being evaluated on merits, for example, and it hasn't even gone to SCOTUS yet: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/07/appeals-court-rejec...