so does the Judiciary Cmte now have to vote on contempt of Congress charges?

And then present it as a vote in the House???

Is that the next step?

DOJ will decline.

2 USC Sec 194 provides that where someone fails to comply with a Congressional subpoena the relevant house of the Congress (in the case the House of Reps) may certify the fact of that failure to "the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

The pertinent language: whose duty is shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury."

If the US Attorney refuses, then Congress has a couple of options. One is to go to court for an order of mandamus directing the US Attorney to do so (setting up the possibilty of a the US Attorney refusing to comply with a court order, which would be much fun to watch) or of using the inherent contempt authority at that point, arguing that they've been left no choice but to use this procedure since the US Attorney is frustrating the use of the normal procedure.

I'll be shocked if they were to proceed under inherent contempt, a procedure that hasn't been used in 7 decades, wasn't used by the repubs against Reno or the WH counsel's office or by the Democrats against the likes of James Watt or Henry Kissinger. Congress doesn't break with precedent lightly and I think there is no way that they will do so here. They'll go with a sec 194 process and see whether the US Attorney obeys the law (which clearly requires him to bring the matter to a grand jury). If not, they're in a much stronger position to then invoke inherent contempt, having been forced to do so by the US Attorney (and by extension, the administrations) own lawlessness.

it would be a useless and time-consuming exercise. The House should try her themselves.

in 70 years? Isn't the current state of DOJ and the WH exactly why inherent contempt is needed? It will be months before we get to the point you talk about, where it becomes clear the DOJ will not impanel a grand jury. And even then we don't get her testimony...we just get punishment for contempt.

And your point of being in a stronger position after DOJ drags its feet: How much more foot-dragging and politicization of DOJ do we need to see before we just act as thought they won't be cooperative? We have PLENTY of examples to choose from already!

After all, we dont necessarily want Miers in jail...we want her testimony. Inherent contempt is used to compel testimony. So again...why would we discard from our toolbox the correct tool (inherent contempt) -- the one created to do the best job for the task at hand? Please don't say because it's dusty.

but thats neither here nor there... it is needed now.

100% agreed. This is exactly what it is for. We are in serious times, and we have few if any other choices, but inherent contempt. This administration forced our Congress to use it, imo. It would be a failure not to use it.

It might be prudent (although more time consuming, which in fact am against) but they can wait until DOJ rejects it. Then they can use their power. The power given to them, for times just like this. It is a SAFEGUARD for the people against our system falling to pieces, and quite frankly tyranny.