Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:27 PM Oct 2019

Update on the motion to stay in the Trump tax return case


As discussed previously, an NY prosecutor, Cyrus Vance Jr., is seeking to obtain Trump's tax returns from his accountants in relation to an investigation being conducted by the State of New York.

Trump has filed a federal case claiming a broad immunity to disclosure of the information sought by the State of New York.

The federal district judge shot that down in a scathing decision, in response to which Trump filed a motion for a stay pending expedited review by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court which hears cases from New York).

The 2nd Circuit, quite predictably, granted that motion. It is quite predictable because it would be unusual, regardless of how stupid the claim might seem, for an appellate court to leave a decision concerning a direct question involving the powers and immunities of a Constitutional office in the hands of a single district court judge.

Federal appeals cases, incidentally, are heard either by a panel of three judges, or by the full bench of that appeals court for a "we really mean it" decision which usually places the case in better condition to go to the Supreme Court.

In any event, as noted here, the grant was made by the judge indicated as "RJL" on the 2nd Circuit docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14664/trump-v-vance-jr/


MOTION ORDER, granting motion to expedite, [14] consideration for stay pending appeal and the merits of the appeal. Appellant's brief is due on 10/11/2019 at 5:00pm. The United States Department of Justice's amicus brief in support of Appellant is due at the same time. Appellees' briefs are due on 10/15/2019 at 5:00pm. Appellant's reply brief isdue on 10/17/2019 at 5:00pm. Argument will be scheduled as early as the week of 10/21/2019. The temporary administrative stay remains in effect until argument is completed, by RJL, FILED.


As is usually the case with these sorts of things, a number of persons here decided the judge was corrupt, not paying attention, on Trump's side, etc..

As is also usually the case with these sorts of things, I will continue to point out that the enemies of this country would like nothing better than for us to give up on our system of government, including the ability to change it, and the institutions which are designed to preserve it.

This is the judge whom those persons here at DU decided to attack and accuse of corruption, without even knowing who it was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lohier

He was the chief of the securities and commodities fraud task force in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's office. He was recommended by Sen. Charles Schumer for the nomination to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that was vacated by Sonia Sotomayor when she was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States. Lohier is the first Haitian American to serve as an Article III Federal Judge and to be confirmed (unanimously) by the United States Senate as a Judge for the Second Circuit in New York. He was mentioned as a possible candidate for the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama.



26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Update on the motion to stay in the Trump tax return case (Original Post) jberryhill Oct 2019 OP
Thanks, again, for facts and insightful background. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2019 #1
good information. thanks. stopdiggin Oct 2019 #2
Thank you! The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2019 #3
At the level of the Supreme Court, though.... jberryhill Oct 2019 #5
True. It's unfortunate that the justices are selected more because of their biases The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2019 #7
That case was an abomination jberryhill Oct 2019 #10
Thank you for your time in researching and creating that informative and Atticus Oct 2019 #4
Thank you ismnotwasm Oct 2019 #6
Great post. All decisions are appealed and the process is what it is beachbumbob Oct 2019 #8
Thanks for the details Midnightwalk Oct 2019 #9
Great questions jberryhill Oct 2019 #11
Sure Rstrstx Oct 2019 #12
Thanks for your insights and commentary... Raster Oct 2019 #13
Thanks! Any idea how long this may drag out? Owl Oct 2019 #14
Depends on what you mean by "this" jberryhill Oct 2019 #21
October 21 is really quick StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #24
Thanks. Yes I was inquiring about when the appeal might be heard. Glad it's soon. Owl Oct 2019 #26
K & R bookmarking FakeNoose Oct 2019 #15
Thank you for the information. bitterross Oct 2019 #16
Appreciated this lucid explication and sagacious "warning" about some DU Prof.Higgins Oct 2019 #17
Thanks for this information. jalan48 Oct 2019 #18
Many thanks for the information...always helps to know what's going on! Karadeniz Oct 2019 #19
Stays pending appeal very common especially in a case like this. Pepsidog Oct 2019 #20
K&R...👍🏼 spanone Oct 2019 #22
Great information. Thanks! StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #23
Well done, as usual. n/t Ms. Toad Oct 2019 #25

stopdiggin

(11,601 posts)
2. good information. thanks.
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:38 PM
Oct 2019

and I am highlighting part of your text .. because you are dead on here

"As is usually the case with these sorts of things, a number of persons here decided the judge was corrupt, not paying attention, on Trump's side, etc.."
"As is also usually the case with these sorts of things, I will continue to point out that the enemies of this country would like nothing better than for us to give up on our system of government, including the ability to change it, and the institutions which are designed to preserve it
."

The Velveteen Ocelot

(116,551 posts)
3. Thank you!
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:40 PM
Oct 2019

It drives me absolutely nuts when people who clearly don't know diddly-shit about the legal system rant about a "corrupt" judge for no reason other than the fact that the judge issued a ruling that we don't like. When the "other side" wins because the judge followed the law, that's not corruption. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

It is true that sometimes a judge or a court will let their biases get in the way of a justifiable decision - Bush v. Gore comes to mind; this was a thoroughly disingenuous warping of the 14th amendment to arrive at a result the conservative majority wanted - in a case where they shouldn't have even granted cert in the first place. Mostly, though, that's not what happens. Reading the actual memorandum or order will reveal bad or biased reasoning, if it's there, but deciding, on the basis of a headline describing (often inaccurately) a court decision, that the judge must have been a deplorable Trumpist stooge, is stupid and ignorant and I hate seeing stupidity and ignorance on DU. Leave that to the GOPers.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
5. At the level of the Supreme Court, though....
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:50 PM
Oct 2019

...the notion of letting "biases get in the way of a justifiable decision" is considered by some to be the entire point.

The Supreme Court is a bad example to use in a discussion of bias because it's pretty much the only venue where we more or less expect them to decide on the basis of certain biases.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(116,551 posts)
7. True. It's unfortunate that the justices are selected more because of their biases
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:55 PM
Oct 2019

than in spite of them, but it's been that way for a long time (I think Rehnquist was actually worse than anybody on the court now, with the possible exception of Thomas). I mentioned Bush v. Gore mostly because it still pisses me off.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
10. That case was an abomination
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 05:06 PM
Oct 2019

There is no justification for elevating a procedural rule over a constitutional provision, which is the closest I ever came to understanding the "logic" there.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
4. Thank you for your time in researching and creating that informative and
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:43 PM
Oct 2019

educational post. Truly, some folks seem to get most of their exercise jumping to conclusions.

Ignorance may not be equally distributed, but it is bipartisan.

Thanks again.

Midnightwalk

(3,131 posts)
9. Thanks for the details
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 05:00 PM
Oct 2019

Not a lawyer, but I expect any of these cases to wind up at the supreme court before anything is finally decided. Is that a reasonable assumption?

If the second circuit didn’t grant the stay could trump have appealed that?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
11. Great questions
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 05:10 PM
Oct 2019

I hadn't thought of the alternative. Yes, that's exactly what Trump would have done if the second circuit didn't grant the stay.

On your first question, the Supreme Court *could* decline to hear whatever the Second Circuit decides.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
13. Thanks for your insights and commentary...
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 06:31 PM
Oct 2019

... in times like these, it is too easy to get hot under the collar and speak without adequate information.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
21. Depends on what you mean by "this"
Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:49 PM
Oct 2019

This appeal will be heard by this court on October 21, and is likely to be swiftly followed by a decision.

That decision, if it dissolves the stay, may be appealed to the Supreme Court which, unless I’m mistaken, will require four votes to take it up. They are in session, so they can, if they want, also hear it on an expedited basis, which would be pretty likely under all the relevant procedural circumstances.

But if by “this”, you mean the underlying investigation to which the subpoena is relevant, well, who knows.

FakeNoose

(33,418 posts)
15. K & R bookmarking
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 06:38 PM
Oct 2019

Your analysis is insightful and should be required for all DUers to read.

Thanks Jberryhill!

Prof.Higgins

(194 posts)
17. Appreciated this lucid explication and sagacious "warning" about some DU
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 07:06 PM
Oct 2019

making very ignorant and inaccurate assumptions.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Update on the motion to s...