In case of fired U.S. attorneys, White House runs out the clock *

* This post has been updated below

Democrats in Congress wanted to talk to two of President Bush's top aides about the politically tainted firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. The House Judiciary Committee wanted former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to turn over documents.

In early court rounds, the Dems won. In fact U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the two Bush advisors to cooperate with the congressional investigation into the scandal that sent former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales packing.

But the Justice Department went to court with Vice President Dick Cheney's favorite refrain: Congress cannot force presidential aides to cooperate because that would infringe on the executive branch's constitutionally protected independence.

Now a federal appeals court has used a different argument to foil the House Democrats' demands. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit basically said in its opinion that time's up on this administration:

The present dispute is of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.... 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.

To compel the aides' cooperation, the court said, "would be wasting the time of the court and the parties."

Lawyers for House Democrats have said they plan to continue the investigation during the next session, after a new administration takes office. In other words, they'll issue fresh subpoenas.

But Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House panel, had another idea. He thinks his Democratic colleagues should just drop their inquiry and let the Justice Department complete its investigation. In a statement, he said:

The facts continue to show that there was no grand administration conspiracy in the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys. Rather than continue to waste the American people's time and money, I hope that next year House Democrats put partisan politics aside and focus on a real agenda that serves the American people.

The decision may turn on who wins the White House in November -- and what tone he wants to set in Washington.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Alberto Gonzales. Credit: Seth Wenig / Associated Press

(An earlier version of this post may have left the impression that Smith wanted his Democratic colleagues to drop the case altogether.)

President Bush to voters: 'Judges matter'

Mentioning neither William Ayers and the Weather Underground nor the Keating Five, the two hot topics du jour of the presidential campaign, President Bush managed nevertheless to quietly slip himself into the campaign today by delving into a secondary issue: What standards a president should apply when picking judges. (*Update: We misspelled Ayers' name earlier but have now corrected it.)

Bush did not have to say about whom he was speaking. He never said "Obama" or "McCain," "Democrat" or "Republican."

But speaking to a conservative legal gathering in Cincinnati, he injected the subject of judicial appointments -- from the district court level up to the Supreme Court -- into the debate, and made it clear that in considering election choices, the president's role in nominating jurists must not be overlooked.

But the president was using a double-edged sword. It is a topic that can energize activists in both parties.

"The lesson should be clear to every American, and that is: Judges matter," he said. (If anyone doubted that, he offered this statistic: He has nominated more than one-third of the judges now holding lifetime appointments on the federal bench.)

No surprise in his instructions: Find judges who will "interpret the Constitution and not use courts to invent laws or dictate social policy."

And no surprise that they fit nicely with John McCain's approach.

As for ...