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

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:08 PM

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

Source: CNBC

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a ruling that requires President Donald Trumpís longtime accounting firm to turn over his tax returns to Congress.

The temporary stay order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.

The move was expected and does not provide new information about how the justices may ultimately vote on the matter. It generally requires five votes to grant a stay, though in some cases one justice may do so pending review by the full court.

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.

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

44 replies, 4195 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 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns t (Original post)
Polybius Nov 2019 OP
mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #1
djg21 Nov 2019 #9
mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #11
California_Republic Nov 2019 #12
djg21 Nov 2019 #14
mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #22
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #16
DENVERPOPS Nov 2019 #30
Dennis Donovan Nov 2019 #15
doc03 Nov 2019 #2
ancianita Nov 2019 #17
onenote Nov 2019 #21
lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #33
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #34
doc03 Nov 2019 #41
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #42
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #3
Thekaspervote Nov 2019 #6
Mike 03 Nov 2019 #8
ET Awful Nov 2019 #18
onenote Nov 2019 #23
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #28
Raster Nov 2019 #4
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #7
Raster Nov 2019 #25
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #26
Raster Nov 2019 #27
cilla4progress Nov 2019 #5
herding cats Nov 2019 #10
aggiesal Nov 2019 #20
onenote Nov 2019 #24
aggiesal Nov 2019 #36
Mz Pip Nov 2019 #13
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #19
ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #39
Mz Pip Nov 2019 #40
truthisfreedom Nov 2019 #29
dewsgirl Nov 2019 #31
Maxheader Nov 2019 #32
onenote Nov 2019 #35
cstanleytech Nov 2019 #37
onenote Nov 2019 #43
cstanleytech Nov 2019 #44
Gothmog Nov 2019 #38

Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:09 PM

1. As expected, CJ Roberts issues temporary stay in Trump v. Mazars, meaning accounting firm doesn't...

As expected, CJ Roberts issues temporary stay in Trump v. Mazars, meaning accounting firm doesn't have to turn over financial records right away. House committee seeking those records had acquiesced earlier today


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:15 PM

9. This isn't unexpected.

 

Itís a stay intended to preserve the status quo ante and not allow the case to be rendered academic while it is being considered by the Court. It doesnít mean anything, and nothing should be read into it. The Court still may deny certiorari and leave the decision of the Court of Appeals in tact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djg21 (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:17 PM

11. Thanks. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djg21 (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:17 PM

12. It means the SC will review the case, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:19 PM

14. No.

 

The Court will conference and determine whether to grant or deny certiorari. All SCOTUS-related matters can be followed at https://www.scotusblog.com. This is a really informative blog with great analysis.

On edit: here is a link to the SCOTUSBlog coverage: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/trump-returns-to-supreme-court-asks-justices-to-intervene-in-dispute-over-financial-records/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djg21 (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:28 PM

22. They have a Twitter account too, as does Amy Howe, one of their prolific writers.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger

Here's a link to the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111819zr_6537.pdf Ö



Full disclosure: IANAL, which most of you have figured out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:20 PM

16. No, it means that they are getting ready to consider whether to review it.

They have not granted certiorari. The parties have to file documents in favor of and opposing review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djg21 (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:41 PM

30. Oh boy

Oh boy, this is gonna be fun, and very very telling..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:19 PM

15. Thanks for the heads up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:11 PM

2. I knew it his f----g court is his insurance policy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:22 PM

17. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:27 PM

21. Both sides indicated they were fine with exactly this order. It says nothing about

anything more or less than that

Here's the order:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:19 PM

33. Justices Gorsuck and Boof are doing their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:38 PM

34. Yes, along with all the other Justices. This is a routine administrative order

that gives the lawyers time to file their paperwork related to the cert. petition that would be done in any case, no matter who the parties were. It doesn't mean anything except that the court is following its own rules and the requests of both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 06:58 PM

41. The talking heads I heard said the SCOTUS

would not even take on the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 07:20 PM

42. They shouldn't (but then, I didn't think they should or would hear Bush v. Gore, either).

The cases they usually accept for review are cases in which there are inconsistent decisions in the lower courts, which isn't the situation here. The lower courts have all been pretty emphatic in holding that presidents aren't immune from investigation, and those decisions have been based on tons of precedent. I don't know how they'd get past the Clinton deposition case or especially the Nixon tapes case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:11 PM

3. Before the predictable hissy-fit about the evil Supreme Court is posted

by people who don't have a clue about the process, this is an administrative stay that means nothing except that it gives the lawyers on both sides time to prepare and file their paperwork.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:13 PM

6. Thx for weighing in!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:15 PM

8. +1

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:22 PM

18. Thanks. I was just about to say something similar (sans the tweet).

The USSC will put an administrative hold on any case submitted to it to allow both sides to present their filings. This is prior to them making a decision as to whether to hear the case or not. From a strictly legal perspective (putting aside personal opinions) You can't let the lower court decision stand and force the release of the docs (or award of monetary damages or enforcement of a statute/law, etc.) while the appeals process is ongoing, otherwise you risk irreparable harm to one party or the other.

The process requires the administrative hold, then the review of filings from both parties, then the decision as to whether to take the case. If they decline to take the case, the lower court decision stands. If they accept the case, further hearings take place and the injunction remains in place until the final decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:28 PM

23. Too late. Some already are saying this shows the court is intent on saving Trump

They don't understand the order or the circumstances under which it was granted and apparently don't care that they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:33 PM

28. Lots of knee-jerking is performed by folks who don't know how the process works,

which is certainly forgivable, and who don't bother to find out how it works before posting an ill-informed rant, which isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:13 PM

4. And Justice Roberts has been sooooooo concerned about the politicization of the court...

... I hope I am wrong and that in the end, the SCOTUS sides with the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:14 PM

7. See above. It's an administrative stay giving the lawyers time to file briefs.

Normal procedure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:30 PM

25. I see this and changed my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:31 PM

26. Better yet, that they don't take the case at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:33 PM

27. Yes, that would be optimum, allowing the lower courts judgement to stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:13 PM

5. Did I just hear Pete Williams

say deadline now is this Wednesday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:16 PM

10. I haven't read it yet, but I believe the committee agreed to a 10 day stay beginning the 20th

Which I'm assuming is what the SC has granted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:24 PM

20. The Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was scheduled to take affect this Wednesday ...

so Pendejo45's lawyers had until Wed. to file arguments with the SC.
The house had agreed to this "Stay" and will file their arguments by Friday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:29 PM

24. Trump's lawyers already have filed

The stay gives the House counsel time to file.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 04:05 PM

36. I agree, that's why I wrote ...

"... Pendejo45's lawyers had until Wed. ..."

And that the House has already given a heads-up to the SC about
filing this Friday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:18 PM

13. Congressional oversight is on the chopping block.

Does not Congress have the power to investigate the Executive Branch? Conservatives want to neuter Congressional power. If this goes in Trumpís favor we can just kiss good bye that we have 3 co equal branches of government.

So any president from here on out will be able to declare any investigation a witch hunt and refuse to comply and get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:23 PM

19. Don't jump to conclusions. The court hasn't even agreed to hear the case yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 05:08 PM

39. It IS on the chopping block

The majority on this court has already showed its colors. People have concern to be worried about this case/filing. Anyone who thinks ideologically based votes on the supreme court don't affect the whole country are dreaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 05:20 PM

40. Not jumping to conclusions.

This is what the Trump Administration wants, a President who cannot be checked by Congress.

Weíll see what SCOTUS does, but I am not optimistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:34 PM

29. I think they may refuse to hear it just to preserve the SC as seemingly impartial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:41 PM

31. I hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:07 PM

32. "consider arguments"


Yeah you bastard supreme right wingers..we don't need anymore time to add to the list of stumpys criminal background..And with your "stellar" group of republicon appointees...crooks all....you understand why
cheetox is stalling for time...just like you did during confirmation hearings..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maxheader (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:53 PM

35. This stay was supported by the House committee

so that they would have an opportunity to respond to Trump's arguments.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Chill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 04:22 PM

37. I wonder if the court will interfere with the House which would be a violation of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 10:59 PM

43. So do you agree with Judge Rao

who argued today that the courts should not get involved in the case where the Judiciary Committee is trying to get Mueller's grand jury records?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 11:27 PM

44. Nope I don't agree as the court is supposed to be one of the checks and

if they do their job they should support the House in doing it's Constitutional duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 04:34 PM

38. This is not a big deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread