BREAKING: Supreme Court will hear Trump financial records case

[StarfishSaver]

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up President Trump’s broad claims of protection from investigation, raising the prospect of a landmark election-year ruling on the limits of presidential power.

A New York prosecutor and three Democratic-led congressional committees have won lower-court decisions granting them access to a broad range of Trump’s financial records relating to him personally, his family and his businesses.

Unlike other modern presidents and presidential candidates, Trump has not released his tax returns. He and his personal lawyers have mounted a vigorous effort to keep that information private and defeat attempts to obtain the records from financial institutions and his accounting firm.

The Supreme Court’s decision to get involved represents a historic moment that will test the justices and the Constitution’s separation-of-powers design. It is the first time the president’s personal conduct has come before the court, and marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged his presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-take-up-trumps-broad-claims-of-protection-from-investigation/2019/12/13/1de84cd6-1d19-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html

[pbmus]

1. Show your colors Supremes...Fascism or Democratic Republic

[TheBlackAdder]

59. Boofo for the Trump Win!

.

Boofo the Supreme Court Judge (Kinko the "Kid-Loving" Clown song parody--remember Dr. Demento?)

Kick ass lyrics posted on the video about Justice Boofo.

.

[Poiuyt]

2. I'm a little surprised they agreed to hear this case

[Goodheart]

5. Obviously the dipshits (Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas) want to side with trump.

[The_Counsel]

28. In a Perfect World, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh Would Recuse...

...but then again, in a perfect world neither would even be on the bench.

Instead, we live in the United States, where anything goes.

[StarfishSaver]

31. No

Justices don't recuse because a case involves the president that appointed them.

[The_Counsel]

36. Like I Said: "In a Prefect World..."

Sadly, the U. S. of A. is far from perfect--especially these days.

[StarfishSaver]

38. That wouldn't be "perfect." It would be a mess.

Since most federal cases involve the president of his administration to some degree, justices would essentially be disqualified from most cases until a new president is elected.

As I said, it would be a mess.

[The_Counsel]

42. In This Instance, Only 2 of 9 Would Recuse, Though.

That would leave 7 Justices, still enough to get something done.

When was the last time even a two-term President had more than three Justices appointed and active at the same time while he was in office? FDR?

[StarfishSaver]

44. Fortunately, your proposal is a non-starter

Because it would be a mess ...

[The_Counsel]

49. I Guess It's a Good Thing I'm Not Proposing That, Then.

First of all, it would probably take a Constitutional amendment--not that very many on the right even give a damn about that document these days. Let's hope that Roberts is one who actually still does....

[Bettie]

3. This very likely means that they

have five votes to say that congress isn't a thing.

If they rule that congress has no oversight power, we really are done, they've made him King.

ETA: Also, does this kick the can down the road to next Summer?

[StarfishSaver]

6. Not necessarily

It could be just the opposite.

If they let the lower court case stand that ruling will apply only in the DC Circuit and Trump could still try to defy Congress in other courts. It's possible the Supreme Court wants to decide this once and for all and tell all courts in the country that Trump he's full of it.

We can't necessarily read anything into the fact that they accepted cert

[Bettie]

11. I have no trust in the five

conservatives on the court.

It would be nice if they did that, but I've no faith that they are anything but a bunch of hacks doing Agent Orange's bidding.

[StarfishSaver]

30. We don't need 5. We just need 1

And I think Roberts is in play

[Quixote1818]

45. This is a pretty cut and dry case so I agree Roberts will probably go by the Constitution

He was appointed by Bush who hates Trump and he seems willing to give the other conservative judges cover by being the swing vote.

[SlogginThroughIt]

65. That seems optimistic.

I don’t believe for a second it will go down that we. I think we are completely fucked.

[pbmus]

8. FUBAR...

[spanone]

9. Don't forget every Republican Senator is about to Vote that Congress has no Oversight.

If trump didn't Obstruct Congress....it can't be obstructed.

[Bettie]

12. On the other hand

just the idea that the SCOTUS is on his side will cause him to go full Hitler right away! He's directing the impeachment "trial" with the Turtle, so he knows he's getting away with it all, so he'll double down on the criminal behavior.

I'm thinking it is time to step away from news for a bit. I feel utterly hopeless at this moment.

[Generic Brad]

62. There's no Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy to help us

I sensed we were moving to dictatorship when Bush II was wrongly appointed. I became more worried about it when Citizens United passed. When Trump stole his office I felt my fears were justified. McConnell has confirmed all this and my anxiety is amped up.

We are now in a fight for our lives and most of us don’t realize the severity of it. All week i have had a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomachs over this. I believe I feel as stressed as you do.

[Bettie]

63. And people keep telling us to trust

the system of checks and balances....but those are no longer in place.

Checks and balances, rule of law only work when both sides agree to follow them.

Only one side follows them and we're losing ground daily...and if the SCOTUS rules as I fear they will, congressional oversight won't even be a 'thing' anymore.

[triron]

64. Just them taking the case delays anyone getting Trump's tax returns. Their objective is clear.

[StarfishSaver]

67. Taking the case doesn't make it clear they're trying to keep anyone from getting Trump's records

They're the Supreme Court. They take and decide cases. That's what they do. There's nothing inherently nefarious about granting cert in a significant federal case involving the president of the United States and it's certain not proof of any objective to delay the case. If that were there objective, they wouldn't need to grant cert to do it.

Everything's not a grand conspiracy.

[Bettie]

68. I will never again make the mistake of thinking

that any Republican has the good of the country at heart.

They have shown us who they are. We need to believe them and react accordingly.

I'm tired of calls for "civility" when it only goes one way, they expect our side to play by rules they have no intention of following.

[BKDem]

21. If they let him get away with this...

...we really are finished. No exaggeration.

[LastDemocratInSC]

23. The right ringers complain about "overturning the 2016 election

If the Supreme Court rules that the financial document requests are out-of-bounds they will have gone a long way toward overturning the American Revolution.

[VMA131Marine]

32. Pretty sure it only takes four votes of the justices to hear a case.

However, if they eventually overrule the lower court rulings then you can pretty well throw out the emoluments clause because there will be no way to investigate if the president has broken it.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. If SCOTUS rules with Trump, there is no Constitution

because to have separation of powers, you need enforcement. If you have no information, you have no enforcement. It would be a Constitution composed solely of the holes in swiss cheese.

[at140]

29. All 3 branches are co-equal according to constitution

which I interpret as when disputes arise between executive and legislative branches, one can't over-rule the other, and have to seek help from judiciary branch to resolve the issue.

[bucolic_frolic]

37. But that makes judicial superior to the other 2 overturning Marbury v. Madison

maybe that's what they're up to. It would be like starting all over again.

[at140]

41. I always wondered about that

as to why judges have so much power over elected politicians.
But if you examine history of SCOTUS, all their decisions have been accepted as the final outcome.

[bucolic_frolic]

43. well i'm no legal scholar, but it's judicial review i think

and was established in Marbury v. Madison, or so intro polic sci courses taught

[applegrove]

7. They will hear appeal and other cases in March and rule in June. CNN

[Bettie]

16. So, no one will ever see any of it

and he is protected.

Checks and balances? Nah, not anymore.

[triron]

18. Delaying that long is just what Trump wants. They are already doing his bidding.

Constitution is now garbage.

[uponit7771]

60. The biggest flaw in the system in the timeliness of US Courts regarding government matters. If there

... was more meditate threats the courts would still be waiting

[onecaliberal]

10. Of course, they have to protect their king.

[pwb]

13. He lost up til now?

Chief Justice Roberts cares about The Constitution , I don't think he will protect trump. Especially because they put such controversial people on his court.

[StarfishSaver]

17. I tend to lean that way.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. What's the difference between this and whitewater?

The Clinton's had their financial records subpoenaed during that investigation. Granted, they had nothing to hide.

I don't see how they can say the constitution prevents this.

[StarfishSaver]

19. The Clintons didn't fight the subpoenas

So this wasn't an issue.

[Buckeyeblue]

24. I get that but they didn't fight it because either

1. They didn't feel like they had legal standing

2. They didn't want to give the appearance of having something to hide

[StarfishSaver]

33. 3. They're not crooks who spit on the law and Constitution

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. Any idea when they will rule on the case? Nt

[StarfishSaver]

22. June

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. ...great...maybe we can convince Nancy to convene a second impeachment inquiry

Just before the convention.

[StarfishSaver]

58. I'm not sure there's anything impeachable in the financial records

My understanding is that these are records related to his activities before becoming president. While it's possible they could be the basis for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, it would be a tough row to hoe. I think that's why Pelosi and team kept that part of the investigations separate from the impeachment, which focuses on is wrongdoing while in office.

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. I thought it was for records from the past 10 years?

Or am I confusing this with another case?

If it does include his records while president, then there certainly could be evidence for impeachment, but in any case, it will be good ammunition for the fall election, especially if he doesn't pay any taxes, and isn't really a billionaire, and especially if he is deep in debt to Russians...

[budkin]

25. We all know how this is going to end

5-4 in favor of Trump. He owns SCOTUS now.

[StarfishSaver]

34. No, we don't know tbat

People need to take a breath.

[budkin]

47. It's become so predictable at this point

They shouldn't even be taking the case.

[StarfishSaver]

48. It's not predictable at all

And they have very good reason to take the case.

[mnmoderatedem]

52. Roberts is our hope

I know W appointed him, but he's capable of making reasonable judgements, unlike the other conservative appointments

[StarfishSaver]

54. True - but I actually wouldn't be surprised if more came on board

If the liberals and Roberts can draft the opinion just right - maybe not going as far as we want but still strong - they might be able to cobble together a super majority or maybe even a unanimous decision.

Often - especially in major cases like this - there's a lot of horse trading between the justices who go back and forth over language and outcomes. The Chief Justice has a lot of influence over this. If he feels strongly that the Court needs to send a message, he and the other justices work out all sorts of compromises and adjustments to get to a unanimous decision, if possible.

One example of this is Brown v. Board of Education where Chief Justice Warren and the liberal wing felt the decision had to be unanimous and that a split decision would do more harm than good.

This is going to be interesting

[LenaBaby61]

51. 5-4 in favor of Trump. He owns SCOTUS now.

WORSE CASE SCENARIO which is possible with a Fascist Fatso Supreme Court judgement:

We more than likely WON'T be seeing a Democratic presidency maybe ever again.putin wouldn't want that.
It'll be thuglican presidents, trumputinthuglican Senates and NO Congress because remember, since a thuglican president can't be reigned in and do anything he wants to, and Congress won't have any oversight power, then thuglicans can rig, gerrymander and fix elections with foreign and domestic help forever until the end of time.

Hell, why even have elections since trumputinthuglicans can stay in power forever since they may not even want to be bothered with voting

The Banana Republic of the USA.

2020-

RIP USA as we knew it pre the 2020 GE.

[cureautismnow]

27. Gorsucks and Buffo should recuse.

But they won't of course since you couldn't find their integrity with a microscope.

[StarfishSaver]

35. Justices don't recuse just because a case involves the president who appointed them.

[cbdo2007]

39. I'm guessing Roberts wants shut Trump down for good.

If they let the lower court decision stand Trump will keep fighting it some way or another. This way the decision will be final and I bet dollars to doughnuts Roberts wants to teach Trump a lesson about the law.

Roberts has never wanted to be a hero for the crazy conservatives, he wants to be king of his own court legacy.

[StarfishSaver]

40. DING DING DING! We have a winner!

[bucolic_frolic]

46. I agree with that, Roberts is no lightweight

and I'm also wondering, do we have any stats on cases that have been ruled dozens of times by lower courts that ultimately were decided at SCOTUS level? How many times did they flip so many judges' rulings all in one direction? I would not think it very many. Ultimately they all read the same legal codes and same Constitution, and there can't be a lot of reverence for DOJ rulings that have never been tested.

[Awsi Dooger]

50. Depending on one person in the world

Not my idea of an ideal scenario. The other four will be like the Republican congress...looking away and rubber stamping everything, equipped with some absurd rationalization like Scalia in 2000.

I would make Roberts the favorite to side with the conservatives. It has to be favored that way, because that's his overall tendency. The notion that he wants an independent legacy, or to rely on the Obamacare example, is not weighty enough to overcome the big picture reality of his typical slant.

[honest.abe]

53. Yes, I believe you are correct.

Roberts is not going to go out of his way to protect Trump. Recall Trump's insults back when Roberts sided with Obamacare.

[Poiuyt]

55. I think Roberts is very sensitive about his Court being seen as political

He wants the Roberts Court to be thought of as legitimate so he will be very conscientious in making his decisions.

[renate]

57. I like this... thank you

It makes a lot of sense and I feel better now.