The problem with the whole series of cases of the Courts trying to “Call balls and strikes” between Congressional right to oversite and whatever special status you want to give to the presidency, is that it is always the same case insofar as it is always Congress wanting information and always the president is refusing to supply it until a court gives a final unappealable order that he do so.
At the pace these cases go, (which in fairness isn’t all that different from the pace any other case goes except for the near certainty that it will go at least as far as a cert petition) the time from filing to a final decision resolving the matter and the documents actually being produced or the witness testifying can barely play out in four years, and rarely if ever within a single 2 year congressional term.
One somewhat radical solution that would really balance the scales would be a rule that disputes between the Congress (would need to be carefully defined to exclude a single congressperson acting on their own) and the president, regarding subpoenas are to be expedited so as to be considered before any other matter on the court’s docket at least for district courts and courts of appeals…
So, if the court was scheduled for a trial in another matter and this sort of case came to its docket, the court would have to put that and all other matters offer until it heard and ruled on whether the subpoena was enforceable or not. Same for Court of Appeals, it would be the next case argued and once argued the next case decided. That wouldn’t change the substantive law any, Congress might still win or lose in any particular case, but it would go from filing to decision by the court of appeals in a few weeks to a few months instead of years, which as much as courts would hate it, would, I believe be healthy for the system, since both sides would know that if they take a reasonable position they will be quickly called on it and would enormously balance the scales between the branches…
I think the biggest implication here is that Trump is now backed into a corner. If he loses the election, he’ll be indicted the second his term is up on January 20. Whether or not he’s ever convicted of anything, he’ll certainly spend the rest of his life defending everything he has in court. I’m guessing that he’s not very happy about that thought.
As for all his other recent decisions Robert’s made it clear what Trump should argue to get the result he wants. In other word’s Roberts is providing Trump with free legal advice.
Actually, I haven’t seen anything that indicated he can’t be indicted now. On the contrary, I’ve seen analysis that concludes that the striking down of the “Absolute Immunity” claim seems to imply that the DOJ memo is null and void and New York can indict him now, if they have a case. They could wait for the returns (assuming Deutsche Bank goes ahead and delivers) but if there’s any more filings and such, file the case you have now and let’s get the party started…
One day we will know trump and his crimes thoroughly. For me there is more than enough. Copious amounts… epic dung hill piles the size of Everest full of reasons to reject him on 11/3/20. That anyone now thinks he is a good and decent human worthy of office is a statement on that persons epic stupidity. and open denial of obvious reality. But to be fair we all must have the freedom to make up our own minds. Because when one does not then none of us do. I’m still free to think a goober is wrong however.
I totally agree. The tax returns are irrelevant in the face of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans - dead because Trump is an insane and incompetent excuse for a leader.
But the deaths are just one thing of many, too. The racism has iost him untold numbers of suburban voters.
What we might all be missing is a faint dog whistle from the Roberts court - speaking with as close to a unanimous voice as the Chief Justice himself could possibly muster - letting the country know that “all of the winning” is just about over, and they can now say to Current Occupant “Yes, we are tired of it, and of you.”
I would direct your reading to this summary of the DoJ policy regarding presidential legal immunity (their wording, not mine). My opinion is there is no logic involved in arriving at immunity for a POTUS since we have a vice president and Amendment 25, section 4 which allows a sitting POTUS to lay down his duties or take them up again. The mechanism exists for indictment and resolution.
The web address will take you to the complete reasoning behind the summary. Again I agree with none of their conclusions.
“In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing vaUdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”
RANDOLPH D. MOSS Assistant Attorney
General Office of Legal Counsel
… … … …
Also somewhere in my records I have the original 1973 findings. They were in response to the indictment and resignation of Spiro Agnew who was Nixon’s Vice Prez.
And from what I’m reading today (Warning: IANAL) The Supreme Court just agreed with you. Of course Barr will never indict Donnie, but the indictment I was referring to was one (or more) from New York (and possibly other jurisdictions, once things get rolling) covering claims of bank fraud, illegal campaign contributions (waves to Stormy Daniels) and various other things that were hinted at in Mueller and all the other messes over the past two years. Throw in a few for the offspring and I’ll crack open a nice bottle of wine with dinner…
It has always been the Congress wanting information. Until Trump, Presidents always negotiated providing information. Trump is the first President, including Nixon, to flat out stonewall Congress. The idea of a cabinet official refusing to attend to a house committee meeting because the other party controlled the house just didn’t happen.
McConnell, the house leadership and Trump have taken partisanship far beyond any precedent. I think the extreme partisanship started with the Republican reaction to Obama, or maybe with Newt Gingrich, but Trump has taken it to something utterly corrosive.
The irony in this is that the vast majority of Chiselin’ Trump’s supporters cannot afford to stay at his “luxury” properties. Moreover, Chiselin’ Trump would kick these people out of his properties should they ever appear at any of them.
If you check the listings I think you’ll find bargain-basement lease and rental rates at every last one of them. People have been trying to sell out of their condos - some even willing to take a loss - and bookings at the hotels/resorts are in the proverbial toilets. His boys know shit-all about how to run properties in the best of times; they are floundering around now that the travel/entertainment/hospitality industry has hit the skids.
Well there is the fact that the trumpers and Barr miss. It’s a damned memo!! It is not a law. In my humble non lawyer brain I cleave to this thought carved in stone at he Supreme Court…
Equal Justice Under law
That’s what it says. And to me that means even a sitting POTUS is subject to our laws. He cannot shoot someone on 5th ave for example and expect to getaway with it.
