HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Supreme Court temporarily...

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:03 PM

Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns t

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/supreme-court-temporarily-halts-court-order-requiring-accountants-to-turn-over-trumps-tax-returns-to-congress.html

39 replies, 1644 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns t (Original post)
HAB911 Nov 2019 OP
LovingA2andMI Nov 2019 #1
SterlingPound Nov 2019 #2
KPN Nov 2019 #17
PJMcK Nov 2019 #27
HAB911 Nov 2019 #3
skip fox Nov 2019 #8
Happy Hoosier Nov 2019 #13
HAB911 Nov 2019 #14
jberryhill Nov 2019 #23
Princess Turandot Nov 2019 #15
Imperialism Inc. Nov 2019 #21
onenote Nov 2019 #35
cbdo2007 Nov 2019 #32
mucifer Nov 2019 #4
Champion Jack Nov 2019 #5
PJMcK Nov 2019 #28
backscatter712 Nov 2019 #30
triron Nov 2019 #6
Nevilledog Nov 2019 #7
triron Nov 2019 #9
cbdo2007 Nov 2019 #10
triron Nov 2019 #19
Princess Turandot Nov 2019 #11
triron Nov 2019 #16
CatWoman Nov 2019 #18
HAB911 Nov 2019 #24
onenote Nov 2019 #33
mucifer Nov 2019 #12
KPN Nov 2019 #20
mucifer Nov 2019 #22
Imperialism Inc. Nov 2019 #25
KPN Nov 2019 #26
StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #29
jcgoldie Nov 2019 #39
mfcorey1 Nov 2019 #31
onenote Nov 2019 #34
iloveObama12 Nov 2019 #36
Jewls2 Nov 2019 #37
Gothmog Nov 2019 #38

Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:04 PM

1. Here we go....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LovingA2andMI (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:06 PM

2. This is where America stands or falls with our rule of law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SterlingPound (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:15 PM

17. Didn't we already do that in 2000 with Gore-Bush FL recount?

We fell. The GOP and conservative SCJ's know that.

Of course, if enough Americans actually cared, we could change that. But thgat's putting the horse before the cart. Let's see what they decide over the next couple days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LovingA2andMI (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:28 PM

27. Hold on a sec...

Did you read this paragraph in the article?

Earlier in the day, attorneys for House Democrats said in a letter they would not oppose a temporary delay in enforcing the subpoena to allow the court time to consider arguments on both sides. The committee said in the letter that it would provide its response on Friday.


House Democrats understand this process. Let's not get ahead of our skis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:06 PM

3. I was sure they would not take it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:09 PM

8. Does halting the order mean that the Supreme Court will take it, or

is it just a question of giving them past Wed. (the deadline) to decide if they will take it or not??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skip fox (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:13 PM

13. Yup.... they have yet to decide if they are taking it.

Legally, there is no good reason too. The lower courts are not split on this. But they may. Here's hoping we are still a nation of laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skip fox (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:13 PM

14. don't know, talking heads are chewing it over now, lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skip fox (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:23 PM

23. It's pretty normal to issue a stay pending appeal

 


The appellate courts in both of the tax return cases did the same thing, and people here at DU had the same freakout over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:14 PM

15. They haven't taken or denied it yet. This is a routine action already agreed to by the House, whilst

they are deciding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:22 PM

21. Yeah, it would be surprising if they took it.

There is a very little chance Roberts would rule with Trump. The other four stooges could still grant cert but knowing they have no chance to flip Roberts it would just make them look like fools to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imperialism Inc. (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:49 PM

35. Personally, I think it would be surprising if they don't take it.

Hearken back to US v. Nixon. The Court tends not to shy away from cases like this. As it said in that decision (which involved the enforceability of a subpoena for presidential records):

"In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others. The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Court, however, have unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison, supra at 177."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:39 PM

32. I've heard from some very fair lawyers, that they think the SC will still take the case...

just out of respect to the President, but that they will rule against him in their decision. So still expecting this to get scarier before it gets better, but the law is pretty clear here on whether or not they should get access to them or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:07 PM

4. damn! So sick of him being above the law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:08 PM

5. This is Bull

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Champion Jack (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:31 PM

28. You need to understand the process

The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. And Democrats have agreed to the stay.

Earlier in the day, attorneys for House Democrats said in a letter they would not oppose a temporary delay in enforcing the subpoena to allow the court time to consider arguments on both sides. The committee said in the letter that it would provide its response on Friday.


This is a process decision. It does not state that the Court will hear the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PJMcK (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:35 PM

30. Yep, this is routine, don't panic.

Appeals courts will almost always stay orders from lower courts when they do something permanent, like an execution, or outing Trump's tax returns. That's so the court can complete due process before carrying out something for which there's no undo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:09 PM

6. Fuck them to hell. Bunch of traitors with Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:09 PM

7. I guessing this is a temporary stay.

This is not a grant of certiorari.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:10 PM

9. Next they will just declare Trump as King.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:10 PM

10. Isn't this standard response to these issues, while they figure out what to do?

They aren't overturning it, they are pausing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:19 PM

19. Even going this far?


?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196486878666641408&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2Flive%2F2019%2Fnov%2F18%2Ftrump-news-today-live-impeachment-hearings-ukraine-republicans-defense-latest-updates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:11 PM

11. To recap, this is just granting a temporary stay while SCOTUS decides if it will hear the appeal.

This is the step that the House already agreed to: see the current LBN post here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142396927

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:15 PM

16. I feel better now. Thanks for the clarification. Guess I can't call them traitors yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:16 PM

18. thanks Princess

wasn't this done in lower courts as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:23 PM

24. +++++++++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:40 PM

33. It isn't even that

It's a stay until Thursday at 3 pm to allow the House to respond to Trump's request for a longer stay pending the court's consideration of the Trump petition for certiorari. Once the House has had a chance to respond, the Court (or Roberts alone) may or may not issue a further stay pending action on the petition for certiorari.

Here's the relevant language:
IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 19-5142, is hereby
stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Thursday, November
21, 2019, by 3 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111819zr_6537.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:12 PM

12. msnbc said it's not a ruling on the merit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:20 PM

20. So there is hope this SCOTUS may actually rule based on the "merit"? While I'll remain hopeful,

I'll believe it only when I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:22 PM

22. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:24 PM

25. All down to Roberts really.

I think the other 4 would do pretty much anything for their party, no matter how little sense it makes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imperialism Inc. (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:27 PM

26. And maybe Gorsuch.

Let's hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:32 PM

29. Everybody calm down! This is not a big deal

This is a procedural matter that is very common, was expected, and on which the House is on board.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 04:38 PM

39. How long do they usually consider the case before taking it up or dropping the stay?

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:37 PM

31. I have no faith in the present Supreme Court. It is built to accept whatever

is presented in favor of drumpf. The sensible ones on the court are outnumbered by right wing judges who make the rule of law an afterthought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:41 PM

34. I suppose it's too much to ask that folks who don't know anything about SCOTUS procedure

not go jumping to conclusions about Court orders.

This order, which had the support of BOTH SIDES is about as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:54 PM

36. Ah come on man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:06 PM

37. Trump gets away with things cause he keeps things tied up in courts until they fade away.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 04:35 PM

38. This is a purely administrative order and is not a big deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread