Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Update on the motion to stay in the Trump tax return case [View all]
As discussed previously, an NY prosecutor, Cyrus Vance Jr., is seeking to obtain Trump's tax returns from his accountants in relation to an investigation being conducted by the State of New York.
Trump has filed a federal case claiming a broad immunity to disclosure of the information sought by the State of New York.
The federal district judge shot that down in a scathing decision, in response to which Trump filed a motion for a stay pending expedited review by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court which hears cases from New York).
The 2nd Circuit, quite predictably, granted that motion. It is quite predictable because it would be unusual, regardless of how stupid the claim might seem, for an appellate court to leave a decision concerning a direct question involving the powers and immunities of a Constitutional office in the hands of a single district court judge.
Federal appeals cases, incidentally, are heard either by a panel of three judges, or by the full bench of that appeals court for a "we really mean it" decision which usually places the case in better condition to go to the Supreme Court.
In any event, as noted here, the grant was made by the judge indicated as "RJL" on the 2nd Circuit docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14664/trump-v-vance-jr/
MOTION ORDER, granting motion to expedite, [14] consideration for stay pending appeal and the merits of the appeal. Appellant's brief is due on 10/11/2019 at 5:00pm. The United States Department of Justice's amicus brief in support of Appellant is due at the same time. Appellees' briefs are due on 10/15/2019 at 5:00pm. Appellant's reply brief isdue on 10/17/2019 at 5:00pm. Argument will be scheduled as early as the week of 10/21/2019. The temporary administrative stay remains in effect until argument is completed, by RJL, FILED.
As is usually the case with these sorts of things, a number of persons here decided the judge was corrupt, not paying attention, on Trump's side, etc..
As is also usually the case with these sorts of things, I will continue to point out that the enemies of this country would like nothing better than for us to give up on our system of government, including the ability to change it, and the institutions which are designed to preserve it.
This is the judge whom those persons here at DU decided to attack and accuse of corruption, without even knowing who it was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lohier
He was the chief of the securities and commodities fraud task force in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's office. He was recommended by Sen. Charles Schumer for the nomination to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that was vacated by Sonia Sotomayor when she was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States. Lohier is the first Haitian American to serve as an Article III Federal Judge and to be confirmed (unanimously) by the United States Senate as a Judge for the Second Circuit in New York. He was mentioned as a possible candidate for the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
26 replies, 4548 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (60)
ReplyReply to this post
26 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
True. It's unfortunate that the justices are selected more because of their biases
The Velveteen Ocelot
Oct 2019
#7