While hearing a major case Tuesday on Congress’ ability to subpoena President Trump’s financial records, several justices on the Supreme Court zeroed in on the question of whether the U.S. House believed it had any limits on its power to issue legislative subpoenas.
It appears the court is paddling as fast as it can to ensure future (Rethugliklan) presidents get both a Get Out Of Jail Free card and a pass for unfettered lawlessness.
“Propping up a favored autocratic kakistocracy gets harder every day,” Alito noted.
You can bet none of these SCOTUS wing nuts would take these positions if Bill Clinton took such a case up there. This is a forgone conclusion…Trump will be beyond reproach once the Court rules.
Expect this awful and compromised 5-4 SC to cut the baby down the middle, such that they will allow requested material to flow to Congress but nothing can be revealed publicly or acted upon without permission from the subject (in this case †Я☭mp). Then it will change its nonsensical mind when a Dem President is in charge. (Remember, this same SC said racism is over and that money in politics is uncorrupting.)
John Roberts you are begging the Democrats to make serious changes to the SCOTUS and we by god better.
Next up: This decision is not meant to establish precedent in future cases.
See: Bush v Gore.
Yea, but karma has a way to also speak, what they provide for a REPUG, they also provide for a Dem President.
It’s a foregone conclusion that the corrupted court will vote 5-4 that Trump is above the law and nobody can touch him.
Which means that the Democrats need to expand the court from 9 to 15 and pack it
Since when is Kavenaugh a “potential swing vote”?
We’ll know if Senate Democrat’s vote to eliminate the filibuster.
Dear lord. It’s not that hard. If Congress subpoena’s something outrageous, the President or whoever can ask the courts to quash it. They’re making it out like if they give Congress the power to subpoena, that they’ll go hog wild and nothing will be able to stop it.
He swings from Budweiser to Miller…
The story doesn’t mention Trump’s basic argument — that the president has absolute immunity from investigation by the Congress or anyone else. If the court is worried about a claim of authority going too far, that’s the point they should knock down first.
Doesn’t really matter at this point. Even if they grant Trump immunity from these subpoenas because he is president, ex-presidents do not enjoy that same immunity.
Either way, eight months from now, at most, Trump will be in deep trouble from multiple fronts.
And President Biden will not pardon him.
Q: What possible interest would the legislative branch have in seeking the tax returns and financial records of a U.S. President?
A: To determine whether a U.S. President who had domestic and foreign financial interests that could be in any way compromising to his/her duties to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The potential for conflict of interest is very high in terms of national security, Presidential decision making, the possible impact of personal indebtedness to a foreign entity of any kind, and the prospect of a President seeking self-enrichment for himself or herself of friends that would occur without oversight. The legislative branch has oversight responsibilities in our system of checks and balances.
I’ll issue a guarantee that the next Democratic President will be under constant investigation by Congress if Republicans are in control. I say that confidently because I’m old enough to remember Obama and Clinton.
Fully expect the Court to come up with some bullshit argument that keeps Trump from revealing anything. But they’ll say that their bullshit only extends to Trump for another bullshit reason. The New York Times editorial writers and reporters will nod their heads in agreement, and sharpen their knives for the next Democratic President.
I don’t think the Times will go after Biden when he is president.
It’s swings on the position he is going to take. Is static on which side he is going to favor.
Oh, no. “Due to the nature of the facts in this case, we decline to allow the House to serve subpoenas, however this is ONLY specific to THIS case and does not set precedent” as tiowally said, see Bush v Gore. They will make damn sure it can be used against a Democratic President and frankly, if they had thought about it and the Republicans had had a large enough majority, they WOULD have subpoenaed FDR’s medical records and blasted them to the public.
Since when is the pursuit of facts and justice the equivalent of harassment. If that’s material to the case, then Trump’s proclivity to lie should be material. We’ve reached absurdity of the highest order!!