Congress should fast track the IRS case over Trump's taxes to the Supreme Court.

[kentuck]

Do the people have a right to know if their leaders are invested and doing business with our enemies and foreign competitors? Isn't that too much of a threat to accept?

I doubt that the Supreme Court, however friendly to Donald Trump, would accept the Treasury argument.

It's time for some resolution.

[hlthe2b]

1. they can ask the courts to fast track, but ultimately the courts have to do so.

[StarfishSaver]

16. And they have to go through the lower courts first.

It could take awhile.

[Clash City Rocker]

2. The Supreme Court that Trump keeps in his back pocket? That Supreme Court?

[kentuck]

4. I don't think Roberts is in trump's back pocket?

And he would make the decision, I would think?

[blueinredohio]

6. Agreed one thousand percent

[lark]

11. You trust the man personally responsible for campaign finance law changes favoring the rich?

I don't!!! He's a rw repug through and through and always sides with big money and the oligarchs - the only reason he supported ACA is because it was so geared towards big business and he does have the occasional concern about the constitution, but again, this is very seldom seen. He's usually just another one of the russian reppugs at SCOTUS. Which will dominate for him, his rw tendencies or his occasional concern about the constitution? Who knows and I sure hate having to rely on him, very shaky ground.

[kentuck]

13. I don't necessarily trust him as much....

..as expect him to rule in his own interest.

And I think his primary interest is protecting the institution of the Supreme Court.

Campaign finance rulings would not necessarily dictate that he would vote the same on another constitutional issue.

[StarfishSaver]

18. I agree

Roberts is very conservative, but he also cares about the Court and his legacy as Chief Justice. He's not going to want to go down in history as a hack.

[ooky]

44. Not sure I do.

Hope so, but as I look around, all I see is Republicans tearing down all kinds of institutions we seemingly can do nothing about. We say, "ah, they need to protect this or that institution", until they don't, and then we are all here being shocked, again, and asking what's next. I hate to be a pessimist but it is appearing to me that none of our conventional institutions seem safe anymore.

[lark]

23. I get that.

The question is will his understanding of the constitution over-ride something that is in the USA right wing oligarchs interests. He's never voted against the interests of the ruling class, but then they have never been so anti-American and anti-law before now when it's in their perceived interest to do so.

[mitch96]

35. "That Supreme Court?"

Yup. I think he believes the conservative SC will protect him. That's why McTurtle has been stacking all the courts with conservatives. If there is a problem with a law, it will go to court and have a conservative outcome......
m

[Blues Heron]

3. nooooo

I don't think boofer or squi are going to help us on this, not to mention the other pukes on the court

[FBaggins]

5. Be careful. Your post demonstrates the case against us.

If the court thinks that the reason for the request is that they want to look into Trump’s finances/dealings... then we lose.

[kentuck]

9. I don't think they would look at it in those simplified terms...

The Constitution must be considered, not just politics.

Does the Congress have oversight of the Executive Branch or not? Or oversight in everything except income tax returns of Donald Trump?

I don't think even this Supreme Court would buy that argument.

[FBaggins]

12. There isn't any other way to look at it

And it's because of the Constitution.

Does the Congress have oversight of the Executive Branch or not?

Of course they do. But the word doesn't include fishing expeditions into personal tax returns. If there were an impeachment going on and one of the charges could be proven/disproven with tax returns, that would be different.

Read the chairman's request letter. It's worded very carefully for a reason.

For comparison - consider: Does the President have the absolute authority to fire the head of the FBI? Yes. However - he can't do it for an illegitimate purpose like trying to obstruct an investigation. Does the president have the power to block all travel from selected countries? Yep... but more than one court found that (based on his campaign statements) he did so with an impermissible motivation.

The same thing could easily happen here. There are lots of pre-election comments to the effect that once we control the House we'll be able to get Trump's tax returns so that we can find out what he's been up to.

If a court thinks that's the motivation behind the request... they'll never go for it. That's why the request went out of its way to declare an entirely different motivation.

After all of that is said and done, there's still the core constitutional question. Did Congress have the power to get an individual's tax returns? Sure... the law is pretty clearly written... but did they possess the power to give themselves that power in the first place? No court has ruled on that (and that question alone will keep the case from getting fast-tracked).

If the law didn't exist already and someone proposed it (in a world without Trump)... I think DU would oppose the measure as an unconstitutional breach of privacy.

[kentuck]

14. Define "fishing expedition".

It sound like "legislative purpose"?

When the Russians have been found attacking our election system, the foundation of our democracy, then there is not a "fishing expedition" to find out if the President is doing business with the same people that attacked us.

I think, at one time, before the ruling in the 1920's, that only the President had the authority to look at someone's income taxes. The Congress passed the law to balance the separation of powers.

I think it would be beneficial for our country to get a ruling.

[FBaggins]

39. You seem to be avoiding the key point.

If that were an acceptable rationale for what he was doing... why didn't the committee chairman put that in the request?

Instead, he went out of his way to avoid saying anything like "we think he was working with Russia and think the tax records will prove it". He said that they just want to review how the IRS reviews presidential tax returns.

Let's begin by assuming that the chairman knew what he was doing.

I think, at one time, before the ruling in the 1920's, that only the President had the authority to look at someone's income taxes

Which jumps us right back to the constitutional question. Let's assume that you're accurate and only the President had the authority to look at someone's taxes (the reality is murkier because income taxes only became constitutional a few years prior to this point). You posit that Congress passed the law to balance the separation of powers... but separation of powers comes from the constitution. The legislature can't pass a law that changes that, it would have to be an amendment. SCOTUS has ruled more than once against legislative action that attempts to arrogate power from the executive.

[kentuck]

40. I agree they made the weakest argument...

...but their incompetence does not change the fact that they need to see if he was doing business with the Russians and whether he was acting legally?

At one time, only the President had the power to look at anyone's tax returns. They thought it out of balance with only the President having the power to look at tax returns. At least, that is my understanding.


Perhaps we disagree that this is an issue that would favor the Congress over the White House?

[FBaggins]

46. Lol... with respect, that isn't agreeing.

They didn't make their weakest argument and they weren't stupid. They knew exactly what they needed to claim in order to improve their chances for a court to enforce their request.

they need to see if he was doing business with the Russians and whether he was acting legally?

They could try to do that through a subpoena from an appropriate committee. They wanted to try this avenue first because it appeared to be easiest. On it's face, the law is quite clear.

Perhaps we disagree that this is an issue that would favor the Congress over the White House?

I don't think the president OR congress should have a due-process-free path to snoop at someone's tax returns looking for dirt. At least one president has tried to use the IRS as a weapon against his enemies. I don't trust a congressional committee chairman to be less prone to corruption.

[dsc]

41. actually Trump provides us our best argument here

He has repeatedly said his tax returns have been audited yearly for over a decade. Yet not one tax case has been brought against him in all that time. So if we take his words as truthful the IRS is auditing a man year after year after year for no apparent reason. That means Congress should be looking into this.

[kentuck]

42. Why couldn't the IG audit the IRS?

Don't they have that authority?

[dsc]

45. I assume they could

but Congress has the right to as well.

[ScratchCat]

7. This is a Separation of Powers Issue

If the court hears it, the court will rule that it is up to Congress to define what "legislative purpose" means within the law. Its not up to SCOTUS to determine what Congress meant when they wrote that.

[kentuck]

10. It is also about the powers of each branch within the Separation of Powers.

The Executive Branch is arguing that Congress does not have the authority to oversee their branch of government.

[StarfishSaver]

19. But, of course, Congress DOES have that right, ingrained in the Constitution

The Founding Fathers set the three branches up as a kind of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" entity with each branch having a certain amount of power over everyone else.

If that's their argument, it will fail. And fail badly.

[kentuck]

21. Good analogy!

'Rock, Paper, Scissors".

[StarfishSaver]

25. It is just that, isn't it?

The Courts have power over Congress by virtue of its ability to overturn or uphold legislation. Their ability to pass on the constitutionality and legality of presidential orders, acts and rules and regulations gives them power over the Executive Branch.

The Executive has power over Congress through the veto and power over the courts through its nomination authority.


Congress has power over the Courts through its advise and consent authority, ability to impeach and set the number of justices. It has power over the president through ability to impeach, approve nominations and oversight.

If Trump lawyers try argue that the executive can't be subject to oversight by congress, they will have to find a way to also argue that they are impervious to any checks by the Courts, since all of these things arise straight from the same document and are intricately intertwined. If you pull out one thread, the whole fabric unravels.

[sarcasmo]

8. They will hand out fines. 2020 is our only hope.

[onenote]

20. Who do you think is going to "hand out fines"?

The courts don't unilaterally "hand out fines." To the extent the law provides for penalties for certain acts or omissions, the Department of Justice would have to bring a prosecution. And what do you think the chances are that the DOJ would bring a prosecution against Mnuchin for following advice given by the DOJ? Or do you think the DOJ is going to bring a prosecution against the DOJ?

[NewJeffCT]

15. It shouldn't need to go to the Courts

The law is simple - They SHALL turn over the tax returns or else face fines and possible imprisonment.

[kentuck]

17. Yes, it is the law.

But they are controlling the Justice Dept right now, also.

The only arbiter that can possible stop the stonewalling is the Supreme Court, in my opinion.

[onenote]

22. Funny thing about due process -- penalties/imprisonment aren't unilaterally imposed in the US

Not sure how you think its supposed to work, but it doesn't work that way.

[NewJeffCT]

24. Yes

normally the person will be arrested and charged with the crimes and then a court date is set.

[onenote]

27. Its a given that the DOJ isn't going to charge Mnuchin for following DOJ guidance

The fight over the tax returns can be resolved in several ways. The way I think it should have been resolved would be for Mnuchin to have gone to court himself (with the support of the DOJ) seeking a declaratory ruling that Treasury is not required to turn over the returns. Since he didn't do that, it falls on the Ways and Means Committee to go to court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief -- a ruling that Treasury is required to turn over the returns and an order directing them to do so. (A related procedure for getting to the same result would be to petition the court for a "mandamus" order directing Treasury to turn over the returns).

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. No need for court delays at all

The law is clear- the returns "shall" be turned over upon request, and previous courts have ruled to support this.

Mnuchin and Rettig are not only in contempt, they are breaking the law. Congress should make criminal referrals to DOJ and begin impeachment proceedings against Mnuchin and Rettig. Barr's likely refusal to prosecute will be just one more article of impeachment.

Waiting for a SCOTUS ruling on settled law is falling for Trump's strategy of running out the clock. Impeaching those who obstruct Congress shows Congress as a co-equal branch of government, willing to use its power, not dependent on the judicial system.

[onenote]

28. Can you cite to the "previous court" rulings regardig 6103(f)?

Because my copy of the US Code annotated doesn't show any cases at all having been brought regarding that particular section of the law.

Even the foremost expert on this provision, Prof. Yin, acknowledges that there is an unstated "legitimate legislative purpose" requirement for requests under Section 6103(f). In other contexts, the courts have been very deferential to Congress when it comes to what constitutes a legitimate legislative purpose for an investigative request and for that reason, it seems highly likely that Mnuchin loses in court.

But at this point, issuing a contempt citation would be exactly the wrong strategy. The better approach is to go to court for declaratory ruling and injunctive relief finding that Treasury is obligated to turn over the returns and directing them to do so.

[beachbum bob]

30. I agree, follow the process before bringing the big hammer.

Did you mean Mnuchin unlikely to win in court?

[onenote]

31. Yes. It is likely Mnuchin loses.

[beachbum bob]

29. A lawful request by a standing investigating committee really can not be denied.

Not a Court matter or a test.

[Grasswire2]

33. exactly nt

[onenote]

37. Of course its a matter that the courts can consider.

How else would it be enforced? Inherent contempt authority? Please. It hasn't been used since 1935 and it won't be used here. And if it was, the matter would still end up in court, just as the 1935 case did.

I think that Mnuchin has a very weak case for not turning over the returns. But not a completely frivolous case. Why? Because he is right that Congress needs to be pursuing a legitimate legislative function when it acts. The courts have recognized the power to investigate is inherent in the legislative function, so ordinarily its not a very high bar.

But things get a bit weird when it comes to Section 6103 of the Tax Code. That provision requires tax returns to be turned over to Congressional committees, but treats the Ways and Mean, Finance and Tax Committees differently than other committees. These committees are give are not required to state any reason for their requests, while other committees are required to be specifically authorized by the full House (or Senate) to request returns and the resolution giving such authority must specify the purpose for which the return is requested and state that the information being sought cannot reasonably be obtained from another source.

While the Ways and Means Committee thus has the broadest authority, it is not unfettered. It still has to be in pursuit of a legitimate function. Where a court might screw us is if it found that, in order to reconcile the different treatment of the Ways and Means Committee from other committees is that in the case of the latter, the "legitimate legislative purpose" must be something within the jurisdiction of that particular committee (otherwise no other committee would ever need to request returns, they would simply let Ways and Means do it). Thus, a court might (not saying they would) conclude that investigating "corruption" is not within the ambit of the Ways and Means Committee. Indeed, it would appear that the Committee was cognizant enough of this risk that it cited a rather narrow basis for its request: the consideration of legislative proposals and oversight relating to the federal tax laws, including but not limited to the extent the IRS conducts audits and enforces tax laws against the President. Notably it didn't say anything about Trump's finances generally, Russian influence, emoluments etc., none of which fall within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction.

In the end, the stated reasons certainly should be broad enough. But I don't regard the case as completely risk free -- there are some judges out there that might try to twist the law to achieve a desired result.

[Grasswire2]

32. there is no case for the Supreme Court

The law is clear. Mnuchen is seizing authority not his in the law.

The transaction is strictly between the IRS commissioner and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and there is zero grounds for refusal to comply.

If Mnuchin interferes, hold him in inherent contempt of Congress and lock him up.

[Grasswire2]

34. MUST hold firm on this, or it will be seen as weakness to be exploited at every turn.

Mnuchin/Trump seizing authorities NOT THEIRS in order to gum up the works.

That is the game plan.

Barr did it, too, by assigning authority to himself.

This is the stuff of tyranny.

[kentuck]

36. The Treasury is arguing that they are not required to turn over tax returns...

The stand-off may require a judicial ruling? I think it would be great to hold him in inherent contempt and have the Sergeant at Arms arrest him, but I don't see that happening. The Court may be the final arbiter?

[onenote]

38. There will be no "inherent" contempt proceeding.

You can take that to the bank.

There's a reason the "inherent" contempt authority hasn't been used since 1935. It only adds one more layer of judicial proceeding. As soon as someone is "arrested" pursuant to that authority they will be in court on a petition for habeas corpus. That is what happened in 1935 and it is what would happen today. And the courts would therefore still have to reach the underlying question as to whether there is a legitimate legislative purpose (which would include the power to investigate) for the request for Trump's returns. In the 1935 case, it was conceded that the subpoena underlying the contempt citation was in pursuit of an inquiry which the Senate had the constitutional power to make and that the subpoena itself was valid. In the current situation, the validity of the request is not conceded, so that will be the issue the courts will have to decide. Under the circumstances, it makes more sense to simply go to court for a declaratory ruling and injunctive relief seeking a ruling that the request for the returns was valid and an order directing Mnuchin to comply.

[MoonRiver]

43. We need to build a much bigger jail in Congress.

NOT kidding.