[anthm1988]

If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president.

> Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court

Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.

[philwelch]

> If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president

Sure they can. They can refuse to confirm his appointments, they can pass laws with a large enough supermajority to override his veto, and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority.

> What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.

Thus disproving this notion that Congress is powerless against the President. The President has the constitutional power to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.

[anthm1988]

> There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.

The constitution is a deeply flawed document that relies on the acceptance of norms and generally good actors. Absent that you end up with a wannabe dictator like Trump acting basically unchallenged.

> and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority.

an act made much harder when the executive flouts subpoenas.