Watch for Cyrus Vance’s CATCH AND KILL manuever coming soon…
4 Likes
We need to say it is not ending the filibuster, rather a judicial act involves personnel, and numbers. The republicans said that who gets on and the rules of getting them on, is a majority vote. It is not really a law, so the filibuster does not apply.
1 Like
what does that mean?
2 Likes
The decision appears firmly grounded in precedent - going back to 1807. The idea of the imperial and insulated President is of much more recent history. Nice to see that 7 of the justices weren’t that anxious to hold that the Executive could indeed shoot someone in Fifth Avenue and not even be criminally investigated for it.
18 Likes
On the NY side, I think the path forward is clear. The facts have been largely known at least since the Times article from last year, to wit: The financials in the tax filings will be grossly at odds with the financials in loan applications to banks. They will appear to have come from two different planets. Therefore, three possible outcomes: [a] tax fraud; [b] bank fraud; [c] both. This is not a good thing for the Trump family.
37 Likes
Hearing that The Supremes - even without Miss Ross - agree that the President is not above the law and does not have absolute immunity from prosecution - a frightening power for any President to have, but especially someone like Emperor Fat Ass - made my heart soar like a hawk.
17 Likes
I think Alito was misquoted.
Didn’t he say, "should seek to establish a heightened standard for subpoenas relating to a sitting [Republican] President.
11 Likes
Sekulow is not a good lawyer.
19 Likes
Oh, he’s still a Republican. This ruling proves that.
The ruling is fashioned in such a way that there’s virtually no way that anyone will see Donny’s taxes before '21.
10 Likes
Apparently that fall that Roberts took in June has rearranged some things for him. This is only good news!
4 Likes
Maybe I missed it in the article–who Besides Alito ruled for Trump?
US v Nixon was 9-0.
20 Likes
Thomas
6 Likes
“The President, by contrast, is ‘of the people’ and subject to the law.”
That’s where I disagree with Roberts and would have to file a concurring opinion – I see no evidence that Trump is ‘of the people’. Of the larvae of a common housefly is my best guess:
Maggots have a conical body form (i.e. extending to a point). The anterior or head-end is pointed with the posterior end being more blunt. The posterior end of the maggot often has two dark areas that can be mistaken for eyes. These are actually the spiracles (breathing holes) for the maggot and enable the maggot to breathe whilst burrowing down into whatever it is feeding on. At the anterior end are the maggot’s mouthparts and these are often hook-like. In many species the structure of the mouthparts is the best way to identify the species of fly from its maggot.
I think there is a William O. Douglas opinion that even a maggot has some legal standing, though, so he definitely needs to release his tax returns.
12 Likes
“Solicitor General Noel Francisco took the slightly more tailored approach of arguing that prosecutors need to show a “special need” to investigate the President, and contended that Vance’s office had not yet done so.”
Which is interesting, because that’s generally the rule when you’re trying to get your hands on someone’s taxes through discovery in a civil trial. We cite it all the time when they’re made as a document request.
8 Likes
Incorrect reading.
The President was pushing a completely novel theory…that the President has “absolute immunity” from Congressional oversight. He very specifically has never claimed executive privilege.
The House lawsuit is absolutely correct to rebut such a theory. Its nonsense.
The issue of executive privilege is another situation…and one that we will start seeing claimed in these lawsuits and probably in McGahn’s lawsuit. The issue with executive privilege is, its not a well defined concept. The courts have historically taken a few “loosey goosey” approach to it…basically saying,
“Yes, Congress has a right to see certain documents and hear from certain administration officials. Also yes, the President has a right to unfettered advice from whomever he wants, without worry that it will be revealed to the public/Congress. So you two play nice with each other and figure out a middle ground”
Today the actually provided slightly more guidance on that issue, giving a series of “tests”. But this is something SCOTUS should have done decades and decades ago, but has instead preferred to say “Play nice with each other”.
But, again…Trump’s lawyers did not argue a case for executive privilege. Trump has never exerted executive privilege. This case was arguing a case for “absolute immunity”…and the victory there is the Court outright rejected that claim.
22 Likes
Catch the financial docs but never publish them? (like the Inquirer catching stuff for Trump and then burying it)
2 Likes
My thought as well: reasserted jurisdiction and precedent but let #45’s re-election (such as it is) go.
4 Likes
Before the 2016 election one of Trump’s biggest advantages was the widespread belief among elites across the spectrum he couldn’t win. Comey, the Obama administration, the GOP establishment, the NYT: everyone acted as if the key thing was to maneuver for position after Clinton won. They thereby helped Trump win. This decision feels to me like Roberts court is making the same mistake. They’re gaming out a post-Trump future. Meanwhile, Trumpist functionaries will continue to prepare for their victory and work on hollowing out and corrupting institutions. You can never turn your back on a bully like Trump, or presume that you’re smart enough to game your way around him. The time to stand for law, if you care about it, is now. That’s the main thing that worries me about the decision: the hubris it displays.
22 Likes