SCOTUS Puts Judges Smack In The Middle Of The POTUS-Congress Subpoena Fight | Talking Points Memo

President Trump’s few wins in his court battles against congressional oversight have come when judges have been unwilling to get dragged into his disputes with the House over its demands. But on Thursday, the Supreme Court handed Trump at least a short-term victory by giving judges a more active role in refereeing fights over congressional subpoenas.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1319660

OT… here we go again… anybody wants to take bets on the date the Ghilane decides to join her beau in the next life and hangs herself? Read somewhere that Barr interviewed her personally…

4 Likes

Trump did not win. Can we please drop that take?

The Court set out a four part test for courts to balance the duties and powers of the Congress with the duties and powers of the presidency. It provides clarity for the Congress, the executive, and the courts going forward.

Balancing tests are common, and useful. Courts are accustomed to applying them.

13 Likes

Hard no. It was Naomi roa (trump crazy on the dc cir) who argues the court had no roll. That was not going to fly.

Roberts was really clear, accommodation worked, but not with trump, so here we are. Here are the 4 factors (plus others raised) and you the court decide if you enforce or not. The citation to a case involving Wilson is revealing, Congress got the documents…

A big win for accountability, and I think we all want someone to stop congressional abuses (see e.g. brenghazi) but also stonewalling. Courts just got involved, and from now on it is just case specific issues, I.e. no need for the Supreme Court to get involved, which will make it all quicker.

Did the court want to go there, no, but trump is reforming our set of processes and norms in new ways, and this is net a good one.

6 Likes

Dude, they were already there the second the House served a subpoena on the Donnie administration and it said 'no ’

I guess Laurence Tribe should delete all his tweets today…

4 Likes

I really don’t see how Trump won.

3 Likes

Ultimately the rulings made sense.

As much as I hate that Trump gets to skate on disclosures before November, i really feared an IOKIYAR like Bush v Gore.

Also, I think that the SC generally should avoid a ruling that effects the coming election so much, as a straight win for disclosures would have.

Seems this ruling should weigh in the McGahn case as well.

This ruling is helpful should Putin steal the election for trump agsin.

How does he do it ? Man, if only I could cook my corndogs to come out that color.

3 Likes

Here’s my take. Issue a supboena to someone. When they refuse to comply - send the Sgt of Arms to ‘arrest’ them. Hold them in their office without a phone - until they produce the documents.

Oh - wait - never been done?

Well try it. And if anyone objects - tell them to take it to court.

Litigate it.

Meanwhile - send out for pizza for the ‘incarcerated’ Senator/congress critter.

Break. The. Norms.

It can be used in OUR favor too.

It’s kind of irritating me.
Of course Trump and his minions are trying to spin it as a win, but it’s disappointing to see people buying into it.
It’s obvious it’s not a win since Trump would have vastly preferred the opposite decision and argued for it.
When the claim you’re making loses you lose.
Unless you’re in some alternative reality dimension.
Simple.

7 Likes

The picture following the lede is basically an up to the minute update on Dorian Gray

Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.

Click Bait…and I fell for it, too.

3 Likes

If it was a win, Orange Julius wouldn’t be going into his self-pity act.

6 Likes

I think this take is more like what actually is going on.

If one views this as a question of absolute power and the imperial pretensions of a president, the two cases represent a stunning rebuke to Trump. If one expected to get a peek at the documents before the election, the cases may disappoint. The latter, however, is far less critical than the former. We are a country of laws. The president is bound by them. Not a bad day’s work for the highest court nor for its reputation as an impartial umpire.

5 Likes

Thank you. I have been fruitlessly arguing this same point on the House Reacts thread until I’m ready to puke.

6 Likes

IANAL-guy (me) calls bullshit too.
I’m outta’ here with no further comment.

1 Like

Can you tell me what Lawrence has been saying about this please? I’m not on Twitter.

1 Like

See if I can find any other choice bits…
image

4 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available