Supreme Court will take up Trump's broad claims of protection from investigation

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

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. The Supreme Court’s action came the same day a House committee approved articles of impeachment against the president, but these issues do not concern that process.

The court includes two Trump nominees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, and it will draw inevitable comparisons with the dramatic decisions on presidential power the court rendered against Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. In both cases, justices they had nominated to the court voted against them. Trump’s lawyers told the court that the lower-court rulings were wrong, and that prosecutors and congressional committees should not be allowed to launch wide-ranging investigations of the president, especially without the Supreme Court’s review.

Read more: 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

[Lonestarblue]

1. I was hoping they would pass on this one and let lower court rulings stand.

If the SC rules for Trump, we will never see tax returns for any presidential candidate again and Trump will get away with his obstructing Congress once again. I really no longer have any faith in this partisan Supreme Court.

[onenote]

12. I never thought that the Court would let this pass.

Too big an issue.

[CincyDem]

17. Only takes 4 to want to hear it. Virtually guaranteed. n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Any idea when they will rule? Nt

[RiverbendsJoe]

5. It's currently scheduled for argument in March...

...although in light of the pending impeachment, it might get put on a faster track. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121319zr_1a7d.pdf

[Mz Pip]

11. Drag it out until it's past the election.

That’s their plan.

[JohnnyRingo]

26. March? And what will they do until then?

Hear pressing cases about speed cameras, soda straws, and Disney copyrights? WTF?

Rome is burning.

[jberryhill]

6. June at the latest

Unless the argument schedule is moved up.

[cstanleytech]

3. Republicans have an interesting interpretation of the Constitution....some might even say perverted.

After all there is no clause in the Constitution that gives the Court the power to block Congress from conducting its own investigation into the actions of a President.
In fact should the Court try to force such a thing it in of itself would be a violation of the Constitution as the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress to be a check on a President and they cannot do that job should the Court try to block them.

[KPN]

7. Yup. Will they stand for the Constitution or

not. That’s what it comes down to. There are 4 we know will stand for the Constitution. If there isn’t at least one more, what then? ...... I sure hope our Democratic Party leaders and key progressive organizations would step up in that case and help mobilize massive protests — like a 10 million person march on DC! ... And even then, what then?

[lark]

22. They will almost certainly find some nitpicky reason why only in this case, drumpf is above the law.

My expectation is that Roberts, Russian Repug that he is, will side with the other 4 rw radicals. I pray I'm wrong, but would be shocked if so - mind you, happily shocked and rejoicing, but still shocked.

[KPN]

27. My thought is you won't be shocked. We need to

come to grips with that. We need to be ready for that. Not simply react. Are we going to be? I honestly don’t know. I’m honestly not confident.

[lark]

31. What do we do when we realize we're officially a fascist state?

Will this be enough, SCOTUS shredding the constitution? I don't see a civil insurrection as working, I see us getting slaughtered by drumpf's military. Voting - ha - we know he will steal the election any way he can , all holds removed once Senate doesn't remove him. Can a blue wave overwhelm his treachery, sadly, I don't know. Would he even leave if he doesn't win, I think that's extremely doubtful.
So, what I will do is go back to my volunteer efforts for Florida Dems, hopefully around the first of the year, and work my ass off for Dems in 2020. If he steals the 2020 election, that's when it gets down to decision time - fight or flight?

[VMA131Marine]

10. It will be interesting to see what line of questioning the justices take

Since it is Congress' job alone to investigate the President, this should be ruled as non-justiciable.

[onenote]

16. If non-compliance with a Congressional subpoena was non justiciable, how would it be enforced?

I guarantee that the counsel for the committees didn't accidentally forget to argue non-justiciability. And it was not surprising that in the case brought by the Ways and Means Committee to enforce their demand for Trump's tax returns, it was Trump's side that argued non-justiciability.

[VMA131Marine]

21. I guess I meant non-justiciable in that

POTUS cannot ask the courts to protect him in this type of case.

[onenote]

29. It doesn't work that way.

If POTUS can't ask the courts to quash a subpoena, Congress can't ask the courts to enforce a subpoena.

[VMA131Marine]

38. The courts can tell Trump that the subpoena is valid

But they have no enforcement mechanism. It’s not even clear that they could do anything to hold him in contempt.

[onenote]

39. the subpoenas are directed to financial institutions not Trump

Mazars and Deutsche Bank.

And they sure as heck can be held in contempt if they don't comply.

[MarcA]

19. +1,000 n/t

[budkin]

4. We all know how this is going to end

5-4 vote where SCOTUS twists the Constitution in knots trying to justify why Trump is allowed to keep his taxes private.

[DENVERPOPS]

8. The outcome of the U.S. basically hinges on this

And they won't decide until June??????????????????

Any one want to make book on how they rule??????????

[zonkers]

23. I think it will end with 500k marching on D.C. and thousands arrested.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

41. If the decision favors Trump, it will probably be limited to these cases,

just like Bush v. Gore. Conservatives don't want to take away their own power to investigate a Democratic president. Can you say Benghazi?

[budkin]

43. Yep, they'll just put an asterisk on it like they did in Bush v. Gore

TOTAL HORSESHIT.

[Brainfodder]

9. Quite a delay to tell POTUS he is not above the law?

I'm trying to see this one as another ridiculous delay attempt, of the inevitable, AND not SCOTUS being proven also corrupted?

Meanwhile, that's a lot of time for the perfect caller to show more of his unhinged glazed donut side?

Also time for his crue of the bestest people to do even more YUGER desperate whatevers, with really nice optics come election time!?!

[rurallib]

13. I am no constitutional scholar but I would say this has the makings of

a real constitutional crisis from the get go.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Lower courts ruled against Trump

Link to tweet

[CaptainTruth]

15. Trump should lose this, hands down. Remember US v Nixon 1974.

Unanimous SCOTUS ruling that Nixon must comply with a subpoena & hand over the Watergate tapes.

I'm not an expert but I really don't see how today's SCOTUS could throw that out.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. SCOTUS is taking a slow approach and not feeding impeachment in the present time frame

No matter how they rule in June, it will not play well for Trump. Even if they side with him, the public will know the Court is crooked, rigged, stacked, and political, which will feed Trump's ouster at the polls. This Court clearly does not want to rule in a political way, that was the gist of voter suppression cases, they left it to the states because if they set themselves up as final arbiters, all they will get is more and more cases that go this way and that way. Some problems need time to fester.

[Lonestarblue]

25. Trump's base does not care that the SC is rigged for Trump and thus in their favor.

Indeed, it could well inspire even more of them to vote for Trump. They want LGBTQ people criminalized and their civil rights taken away, women’s rights removed (even including birth control), the ability to prevent people who do not believe as they do from exercising their civil rights in the name of religious freedom, all non-white immigrants barred from entering the US, all undocumented immigrants rounded up and deported no matter how long they’ve been here, citizenship revoked for non-white minorities not born here, and voting rights reserved for white people, to name a few. This sounds absolutely nuts, but then again it’s Trump supporters and they’re all nuts!

[DENVERPOPS]

34. They don't??????????

"This Court clearly does not want to rule in a political way"

I disagree, esp after the outright travesty of how the last two justices were "installed".......

The Supremes in 2000 Presidential Election??????? They had absolutely no legal or constitutional law or right that allowed them to intervene and "install" W the winner. The voting in Florida was a states rights issue, Florida Law dictated a re-count, the re-count was halted by the Supreme Court, therefore allowing for W to infest the white house......

[Scruffy1]

33. They may rule in favor of Trump because they can.

The fascists, er I mean "conservatives" will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. They don't give shit about precedents or any legal forms. the always use excuses like "original intent" which sound plausible to the some in the public. A good example is the Secong amendment. No court in the land had ever read "well regulated militi" as right to individual gun ownership. That's over 170 years of precedent. It went out the window with NRA "donations". Bush vs. Gore was a complete sham. In citizens United Roberts took the opportunity to screw us all with judicial over reach. Refusing to deal with gerrymandering and ignoring the "one person one vote" principle drove another nail in the Republics coffin.
I have assumed for a long time that those placed in important positions by the Republicans have something in their dossier that guarantees their loyalty. The whole thing reminds me of a gang where you have to commit a felony as part of your initiation. This guarantees loyalty, since you could be snitched out if you don't tow the line. I know it sounds cynical,and can't be true in all cases but the one thing I've learned in fifty years of observing politics is you can't be too cynical about the GOP.
They will occasionally bend a little to give the illusion of fairness because they know they never were elected by any but a few corrupt politicians. The whole Supreme Court needs an overhaul in the way nominees are picked. I think there should be at least 20 as it might be harder to Roosevelt's "court packing scheme" actually did work because the "justices" realized this could happen in the future. They reversed themselves on child labor and other issues by 1940 and withdrew from the anti union "freedom for contract" BS.

[DENVERPOPS]

35. Bravo Scruffy Uno

Extremely well said.................

To me, the true "Nightmare Before Christmas" is that so many dems are just NOW finally waking up to what you and I have been screaming at the top of our lungs since 1980. And now,.....it is most assuredly the: too little, too late cliche.............We are indeed screwed, glued and tattooed.....

It is all over except the U.S. citizen's mandatory Russian Language lessons.......LOL

Katie Bar The Door, Scruffy Amigo

WASF

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Everyone knows it will have been a FAKE TRIAL! RIGGED in Trump's favor /nt

Agree on SCOTUS. There should be a minimum age, say 50, and a retirement age. Every President should get one pick, and not more than two. There should be more justices to handle the workload. They reject a lot of cases now. Society has grown, but the size has been constant.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

42. Justices should have a minimum and maximum age to serve.

I used to practice law in South Carolina, and the mandatory retirement age for all judges and justices was 70. It seemed to work okay.

[redstatebluegirl]

20. We will see if the court he put in place is bought and paid for. My guess is Kavanaugh is for sure.

[Rollerman]

24. We never thought the SCOTUS would ever decide an election, either

But then we got Bush v Gore.
There’s nothing stopping the five right wingers handing the government over to Trump and turning this Country into a dictatorship.

[usaf-vet]

30. Bush v Gore is what started this downward spiral. In my mind I can draw a straight line from 2000 to

2020.

The dots connect. Anoint Bush. Move the entire nation to electronic voting. Use voting machines owned by republican vendors. With those hackable non-auditable machines take control of state governorships and legislators. With that control in hand further stack the state courts, implement voter ID laws, implement voter suppression programs, gerrymander congressional districts, ensure republican congressional seats with all the above.

Four national elections later 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and one Russian assisted election down and one Russian assisted election ahead in 2020.

Here we sit with one Russian assisted installed POTUS. 20 percent of the federal court judges appointed by Trump. One SCOTUS seat stolen and filled by "MoscowMitch". A second SCOTUS seat taken with questionable tactics. One radical AG representing the president. Ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities. One house of Congress (Senate) who seems to have conveniently forgotten their oath to "support and defend the Constitution". And bingo we have gone full circle back to the SCOTUS for the next step. Destroyed Constitution with a president who ignores the rules of law waiting for a SCOTUS decision to make him untouchable and above the law.

And PUTIN smiles at what he has gained.

[ehrnst]

44. That sounds almost hopeful.

[Polybius]

28. By the time they decide, it will be after the impeachment and Senate trial

So they can't use his taxes against him in impeachment. It's a huge win for Trump.

[ElementaryPenguin]

32. At that point, Pelosi and the House could impeach him again.

And if there is blatant evidence of money laundering, and/or tax evasion, and/or he is shown to have cosigners on his loan documents who (as it's been reported) are Russian oligarchs - they should impeach him yet again!!

[Whynotboth]

37. The fact they took the case

means they plan to protect him. End of discussion.

We have nothing left to us... Unfair elections controlled by the whims of Russian Oligarchs, and they will do it again, Senators declaring they have no intention of fairly judging him (Lindsey Graham), Congress members actively involved in the investigation that were part of the criminality and obstruction themselves....


I CALL FOR OPEN REBELLION AND MUTINY. It's the only choice they've left to us.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

[onenote]

40. It means four of the Justices thought it was a case that should be decided by the SCOTUS

and none of the liberals on the court dissented, which sometimes will happen when cert is granted.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if all nine justices supported granting cert.

Sorry not to obey your command to stop discussing this.

And have fun with your open rebellion and "mutiny". Don't forget to write.