The House plans to file a request Friday with the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking for it to review last week’s decision by a thee-judge panel of that court in the Don McGahn case. The decision severely hamstrung the House’s ability to force the Trump administration to comply with its subpoenas.
Just to be clear:
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden = Trump KKKultist
Article 2 says Trump can disband Congress and govern by fiat. It says he can do anything he wants.
Two words:
Merrick Garland.
Guess Congress needs to authorize itself a large military force, as that would be the only way to enforce subpoenas if the courts don’t have a say.
The decision does not just hamper the House probe into Trump’s illegalities, it fundamentally re-orients the relationship among the three branches of government. Hard to believe that even this Supreme Court would be OK with that.
And the District Court judge is not wrong to suggest that the House narrow its case to rest on the specific language of the Internal Revenue Code (which would lead to a very small number of people being able to see the returns) while the other issue proceeds.
Meh, since the death of Stare Decisis, it’ll be a 5-4 finding in favor of Trump.
Then they’ll reverse that when a republican Congress wants to subpoena Biden’s administration.
" On April 23, 2019, the House of Representatives requested that McFadden issue a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s plan to spend about $6 billion from military construction and counter-drug accounts to build additional barriers along the U.S-Mexico border.[8][9] On June 3, 2019, he issued a ruling that the House lacked standing and, therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction. This ruling contradicted the Northern District of California’s May 24, 2019, ruling on this case as well as a 2015 D.C. District Court ruling that found the Republican House of Representatives had standing in a lawsuit against President Obama’s Affordable Care Act in United States House of Representatives v. Azar .[10]"
Precedent for me, but not for thee…
I have a hunch (and it’s just a hunch) that Biden’s resounding victory on Super Tuesday is going to cause the Appellate courts and SCOTUS to rapidly backtrack on unitary executive stuff to prepare to deal with the next Democratic Administration. I will not be surprised to see the McGahn decision reversed at the full appellate review and that decision being upheld by SCOTUS. You’ll see some vote changes on the other Trump related matters.
Even if Dems win the Presidency they’re not putting any SCOTUS justices on the court unless they retake the Senate also. McConnell will let the court operate with as few as six justices if he has to. Four will have to die, retire or resign before a Dem Prez can appoint another one.
I was reading this thread in the wee hours this AM & couldn’t make sense of it.
Can anyone trust Roberts’ Supreme Court not to side (5-4, of course) with Trump against Congress? After all, Roberts is all in a huff about Schumer’s “disrespect.”
This really isn’t all that difficult, seriously. The Constitution is very clear on Article 2 powers, and it’s plainly obvious partisan judges are contorting themselves into pretzels to benefit Trump and the Republican Party. The rest of the country has had enough, and will vote for change in November.
I think Roberts put himself in a bind with that outburst against Schumer, but not Trump. Because unlike the other right wing justices, he likes the pretense of impartiality, a fig leaf of calling “balls and strikes”. If he votes against the House, he’s outed himself to the general public as just another right wing fire-breather. Does he care at this point? I don’t know, but I’m glad it’s all out in the open.
I do soooooo hope you’re right.
And this is why the Democrats must mentally prepare to pack the Court as soon as we have the White House, the Senate, and the House. All it will take is amending the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the Court at nine justices. (Prior to 1869, there were several politically-motivated increases and shrinkages in the number justices, including one time that Congress decreased the number to prevent Andrew Johnson from making an appointment.)
If there’s going to be any meaningful reversal of its current pro-Trump proclivities, the Roberts Court has to understand that the “threat” of Court packing is real and credible. That threat is what Schumer darkly hinted at the other day, and that’s why Roberts clutched his pearls.
$5 says that some republican will challenge that in court… and Roberts will rule 5-4 that the amended act is unconstitutional…
Nice gig they’ve got going there.
So will this be at the speed of a US aircraft carrier or a mine sweeper?
Nothing will ever be very clear, ever again. People need to get used to that. Some sort of rubicon has been crossed, and we’re never going back. Up will increasingly, and unpredictably, actually be down.
Yeah he doesn’t get much notice but he’s the judge hearing the Ways & Means case where chairman Rep. Richard Neal requested Trump’s tax returns under 26 U.S. Code § 6103 (f) (1),
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
He’s having a very hard time ruling on “shall”. 