SCOTUS rules on subpoenas of Trump financial records (Update: 2d Cir. rules against Trump) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    5,083
    Reaction score
    13,022
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    In the criminal grand jury case (Vance - the New York case), the SCOTUS rules that a sitting president is not immune from a state grand jury request. It is a 7-2 opinion (with Roberts joining the 'liberals' and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh concurring). Case is remanded for resolution based on "defenses available" to any person subject to that kind of subpoena.

     
    one day Congress will pass a law that if you want to run for public office you have to release the tax records. Not just for POTUS but for ALL offices. Federal, State and even local. Luckily I won't hold my breathe.
     
    I’m still in the midst of a my move and haven’t been able to digest these opinions. Observers seem to think that both clear the way for Trump’s records to be obtained - though not right away.

    The majorities (both 7-2) are interesting.
    I think Thomas, like Scalia before him, has become the most interesting member of the Court. His opinions are very good and I like his dissent in Vance.
    The denial of injunctive relief by the District Court (and Court of Appeals) should have been vacated by SCOTUS and remanded to determine if the enforceability of the subpoena should be denied on the basis of the President being unable to comply because of his official duties.
    This sets a proper standard going forward.
    The majority opinion seems a little sloppy in that regard in that the issuance and enforceability of the subpoena seem to meld into one. On this particular case there probably is not a huge effect given that it appears the President can argue against enforceability using the standard Thomas mentions (" If the President is unable to comply because of his official duties, then he is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief.")- although I am not 100% on that. But Thomas' standard gives much more clarity to the issue.
     
    Last edited:
    one day Congress will pass a law that if you want to run for public office you have to release the tax records. Not just for POTUS but for ALL offices. Federal, State and even local. Luckily I won't hold my breathe.
    LOL on Congress passing a law!

    It is much more likely the next president will just sign an executive order and it will have to go through the courts because our legislative branch is full on broken.
     
    LOL on Congress passing a law!

    It is much more likely the next president will just sign an executive order and it will have to go through the courts because our legislative branch is full on broken.
    Imo there are too many constituents on both sides of the aisle who believe that compromising to accomplish something is always worse than standing your ground and getting nothing.

    Basically one side starts way off yonder over there and the other side starts way off yonder that other way and there's hardly ever enough steam to get both sides along the way far enough to be able to meet somewhere in the middle.

    I think that's what you get when we all operate in echo chambers.
     
    Imo there are too many constituents on both sides of the aisle who believe that compromising to accomplish something is always worse than standing your ground and getting nothing.

    Basically one side starts way off yonder over there and the other side starts way off yonder that other way and there's hardly ever enough steam to get both sides along the way far enough to be able to meet somewhere in the middle.

    I think that's what you get when we all operate in echo chambers.
    Yep, I agree with you 100% on this. This is definitely not a partisan problem. the vast majority of our elected leaders are really, really bad at their jobs. All one has to look at this country right now and see utterly useless they are.
     
    I think both of the rulings where good rulings. This court has been better than I thought it would be, in large parts to Roberts.

    I think Thomas, like Scalia before him, has become the most interesting member of the Court. His opinions are very good and I like his dissent in Vance.
    The denial of injunctive relief by the District Court (and Court of Appeals) should have been vacated by SCOTUS and remanded to determine if the enforceability of the subpoena should be denied on the basis of the President being unable to comply because of his official duties.
    This sets a proper standard going forward.
    The majority opinion seems a little sloppy in that regard in that the issuance and enforceability of the subpoena seem to meld into one. On this particular case there probably is not a huge effect given that it appears the President can argue against enforceability using the standard Thomas mentions (" If the President is unable to comply because of his official duties, then he is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief.")- although I am not 100% on that. But Thomas' standard gives much more clarity to the issue.

    Thomas and Alito to me seem the most partisan of the justices, honestly. It's always obvious what side of a case they'll rule on. I don't think I've ever been surprised. They're both die in the wool conservatives, but not necessarily textualist the way Gorsuch is. Roberts to me seem to be more into the order and process of the law and also has a long view of the SC rulings in the course of history.
     
    LOL on Congress passing a law!

    It is much more likely the next president will just sign an executive order and it will have to go through the courts because our legislative branch is full on broken.

    An executive order couldn’t require candidates at any level to produce tax returns. And actually I don’t think Congress can either. Elections, even federal ones, are still matters of state law - I believe. Not 100-% sure.
     
    An executive order couldn’t require candidates at any level to produce tax returns. And actually I don’t think Congress can either. Elections, even federal ones, are still matters of state law - I believe. Not 100-% sure.

    Isn't there litigation going on already because of this in California and/or New York?
     
    Good memory, GA. I kinda remember that. Seems that California, at least, wanted to require a Presidential candidate to release their taxes before they could appear on the ballot in that state. I think the courts struck it down, but not sure about that.
     
    scotus blog write up.

     
    2011: “Maybe I’m going to do the tax returns when Obama does his birth certificate,”

    2014: “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely,”

    2016: “I’m under a routine audit, and it’ll be released,”

    2017: “Maybe I’ll release them after I’m finished because I’m very proud of them actually,”

    2020:



    One can't help but wonder what exactly he is hiding :unsure:
     
    Press Secretary trotted out the “under audit” excuse just this week, after the verdict. No lie. 🤦‍♀️
     
    Since part of the story concerns the recent case over the House's supeona, I decided to post this here instead of starting a new one. It's a long one, but it is quite interesting considering the subject and the potential impact it would have held in the short and long term.


    During one of the justices' private teleconferences, according to three sources, Kavanaugh convinced his colleagues to ask for supplemental filings on whether the political-question doctrine applied or there was any other reason the justices could not decide the case.

    The discussion among the justices, sources said, concerned the practicalities of whether the issue Kavanaugh had raised would be relevant to the case involving private parties and whether it was prudent to make the late-hour request.

    But there was a larger canvas that captured the attention of commentators once it became known that justices were mulling the idea as they asked for the new filings in April. Kavanaugh and other conservatives have long sought to bolster executive power, and if the high court were to decide that the House subpoena case was too political to resolve, it would dramatically undermine congressional power. Congress' investigative committees would be unable to turn to courts to enforce orders against the President and his people.

    Yet in this particular controversy, involving Trump's accountants and banks, if the high court were to declare the House subpoenas beyond the reach of judges, there would arguably be no way for Trump to prevent his financial institutions from providing his records to House investigators. The short-term loss could be Trump's -- although sources said that did not enter into the discussions. The justices concentrated on the larger issue of any president vs. the Congress, sources told CNN.
     
    Since part of the story concerns the recent case over the House's supeona, I decided to post this here instead of starting a new one. It's a long one, but it is quite interesting considering the subject and the potential impact it would have held in the short and long term.

    Side note.. how did they get all of these internal memo's?

    is this normal? Chuck?
     
    Well, I’m shocked
    ================
    NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a Manhattan prosecutor trying to get President Donald Trump’s tax returns told a judge Monday that it was justified in demanding them because of public reports of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.”...........

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom