SCOTUS Denies Trump Bid To Block Jan. 6 Records | Talking Points Memo

[discobot]

The Supreme Court refused a request on Wednesday from former President Trump to block a Jan. 6 Committee subpoena for records about the Capitol insurrection.

---

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1401961

[alyoshakaramazov1]

They accepted it.

They ruled.

8-1.

Does this set precedence for the DOJ to obtain the same records? I assume it does.

[arrendis]

Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, too.

[arrendis]

Congress can give them to the DOJ if they feel like it. >.>

Hell, Congress could technically read them all out loud into the public record in the process of drafting legislation. Can’t be charged for it, no matter what.

[leftcoaster]

It’s a good day.

[murgatroid]

Cue the temper tantrum about the worthlessness of “my judges” from you know who…

[rickjones]

And they thought that volcano in Tonga was a huge eruption.

Keep your eye on South Florida.

[lizzymom]

Clarence Thomas dissented.

Color me surprised…

(@txlawyer called SCOTUS blowing FatAss off correctly.)

[leftcoaster]

Do they have Tsunami sirens? If not they’re going to need them.

[mike_in_houston]

As Ginni expected…

[lizzymom]

I’m really not sure which of the Thomases is viler.

[decay500]

Taking a moment here to pause, feel a bit of justice.
Miles to go before we sleep, before tRump&Co sleeps with the fishes, but -
ohhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm…

[lizzymom]

Be nice if that triggered a coronary or stroke.

We should be so lucky.

[fiftygigs]

Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent

Thomas disagreed? Yikes.

[not_so_fluffy]

73 Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico

[timorwig]

@lizzymom

I’m really not sure which of the Thomases is viler.

The one who votes on SCOTUS.

[lizzymom]

Yeah, I think you’re right — but it’s close.

[trustywoods]

@lizzymom

Clarence Thomas dissented.

Color me surprised…

(@txlawyer called SCOTUS blowing FatAss off correctly.

Sweating Ginni’s exposure.

[arrendis]

Check that, Kavanaugh provided a statement, but there’s no identifier re: the decision itself.

Interestingly, Kavanaugh’s statement lays out what amounts to ‘Trump’s fucked in this case, but former Presidents might have a legitimate case to make… just not this time.’

To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome. The tests set forth in Nixon, 418 U. S., at 713, and Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725, 731 (CADC 1974) (en banc), may apply to a former President’s privilege claim as they do to a current President’s privilege claim. Moreover, it could be argued that the strength of a privilege claim should diminish to some extent as the years pass after a former President’s term in office. In all events, the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests would provide substantial protection for Presidential communications, while still requiring disclosure in certain circumstances.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege if the current President does not support the claim were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

[BlackLodgeRefugee]

Way to polish up your place in the history books, Clarence.

I dream of some of these SCOTUS judges being impeached. And a dream it must stay, I’m afraid.