I saw that notice yesterday. My problem with this stuff getting to the Supremes is twofold. The first is exactly what The chief justice said (he wanted to think about it) - no reference to a time length - could be years. The second possible problem is the narrowness of the decision. Even if they rule in favor of those wanting the data it may be very narrow in width. This is why I would prefer a direct approach asking for a wider judgment which would force the administration to grant the house full access to everybody who has anything to do with the president and all testimony given after being sworn in.

This would solve most of the problems for the House, and give them the actual ability to run a real investigation instead of what is going on right now.

I guess I should mention that a lot of the drama, I think, has to do with the simple fact that the house has not, in my estimation, pointed out that they are investigating, just like a police department and should not be expected to allow opposing parties any more authority than the police would allow any other opposing parties to influence or access to their investigations until such investigations are done and charges made. Apparently making such a suggestion is too offensive to the opposition and likely to encourage their ire.

The very fact of media does cover such nonsense kinda points to the problem of the media. Their coverage, as far as I can tell, pretty much controls all of it and, I think, is just flat out wrong. They are no longer not only picking candidates, for us ALL, but now also seem to be more or less controlling the investigations themselves. I have no solution for this but I am sure that they are, in large part, responsible for all the drama and bullsh*t.