Commenter over at TPM compares Fitz's Lockup of Judy Miller to INHERENT CONTEMP for Miers..

[KoKo]

Thought this was a very interesting comment over at TPM by this poster. If Pat Fitzgerald could send Miller to jail for refusing to testify about her source...then why can't CONGRESS with it's POWER have Miers thrown in Congress Brig (or coat closet) for Inherent Contempt in refusing to testify about what she knows about USAttorney firings? How is this different? US Department of Justice Special Counsel uses USDept of Justice Powers to put reporter in jail...and yet US Judiciary Committee can't haul her in when Congress does have equal power with Executive Branch? Maybe it's a crazy argument since Judy is a reporter...but remember how reporters howled that they were immune from "revealing their sources" by precedent?)

-------------------------------------------------
Why doesn't Congress hold Miers in "inherent contempt?" Given that the DoJ will not follow up on Congressional Contempt, Congress must act on its own.

Inherent Contempt hasn't been used in the House since the Civil War. If it's issued, the Sargeant and Arms and his deputies retrieve the person who has been subpoenaed. That person would then be held in custody until he/she agerees to testify (just like criminal contempt). This is tantamount to what happened to NYT reporter Judith Miller when she refused to testify in court during Plamegate.

Show some spine Congress. A subpeana will be totally limp noodle if you guys don't do something to protect it. Inherent contempt may seem extraordinary, but this is an extraordinary expansion of executive power.
Posted by: pragmatist
Date: July 23, 2007 12:33 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003746.php

[KoKo]

1. Two Rec's and no replies?

:shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

2. I think someone posted inherent contempt was last used in 1934.

[Igel]

3. That's what Wiki says.

See no reason to assume it's wrong; it's trivia.