General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns t [View all]onenote
(42,684 posts)Hearken back to US v. Nixon. The Court tends not to shy away from cases like this. As it said in that decision (which involved the enforceability of a subpoena for presidential records):
"In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others. The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Court, however, have unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison, supra at 177."