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

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:36 PM

Supreme Court will take up Trump's broad claims of protection from investigation

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up President Trumpís broad claims of protection from investigation, raising the prospect of a landmark election-year ruling on the limits of presidential power. A New York prosecutor and three Democratic-led congressional committees have won lower-court decisions granting them access to a broad range of Trumpís financial records relating to him personally, his family and his businesses.

Unlike other modern presidents and presidential candidates, Trump has not released his tax returns. He and his personal lawyers have mounted a vigorous effort to keep that information private and defeat attempts to obtain the records from financial institutions and his accounting firm.

The Supreme Courtís decision to get involved represents a historic moment that will test the justices and the Constitutionís separation-of-powers design. It is the first time the presidentís personal conduct has come before the court, and marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged his presidency. The Supreme Courtís action came the same day a House committee approved articles of impeachment against the president, but these issues do not concern that process.

The court includes two Trump nominees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, and it will draw inevitable comparisons with the dramatic decisions on presidential power the court rendered against Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. In both cases, justices they had nominated to the court voted against them. Trumpís lawyers told the court that the lower-court rulings were wrong, and that prosecutors and congressional committees should not be allowed to launch wide-ranging investigations of the president, especially without the Supreme Courtís review.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-take-up-trumps-broad-claims-of-protection-from-investigation/2019/12/13/1de84cd6-1d19-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html

44 replies, 3790 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 will take up Trump's broad claims of protection from investigation (Original post)
BumRushDaShow Dec 13 OP
Lonestarblue Dec 13 #1
onenote Dec 13 #12
CincyDem Dec 13 #17
Fiendish Thingy Dec 13 #2
RiverbendsJoe Dec 13 #5
Mz Pip Dec 13 #11
JohnnyRingo Dec 13 #26
jberryhill Dec 13 #6
cstanleytech Dec 13 #3
KPN Dec 13 #7
lark Dec 13 #22
KPN Dec 13 #27
lark Dec 14 #31
VMA131Marine Dec 13 #10
onenote Dec 13 #16
VMA131Marine Dec 13 #21
onenote Dec 14 #29
VMA131Marine Dec 15 #38
onenote Dec 15 #39
MarcA Dec 13 #19
budkin Dec 13 #4
DENVERPOPS Dec 13 #8
zonkers Dec 13 #23
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Dec 16 #41
budkin Dec 16 #43
Brainfodder Dec 13 #9
rurallib Dec 13 #13
bucolic_frolic Dec 13 #14
CaptainTruth Dec 13 #15
bucolic_frolic Dec 13 #18
Lonestarblue Dec 13 #25
DENVERPOPS Dec 14 #34
Scruffy1 Dec 14 #33
DENVERPOPS Dec 14 #35
bucolic_frolic Dec 14 #36
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Dec 16 #42
redstatebluegirl Dec 13 #20
Rollerman Dec 13 #24
usaf-vet Dec 14 #30
ehrnst Dec 19 #44
Polybius Dec 13 #28
ElementaryPenguin Dec 14 #32
Whynotboth Dec 14 #37
onenote Dec 15 #40

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:43 PM

1. I was hoping they would pass on this one and let lower court rulings stand.

If the SC rules for Trump, we will never see tax returns for any presidential candidate again and Trump will get away with his obstructing Congress once again. I really no longer have any faith in this partisan Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:13 PM

12. I never thought that the Court would let this pass.

Too big an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:45 PM

17. Only takes 4 to want to hear it. Virtually guaranteed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:45 PM

2. Any idea when they will rule? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:52 PM

5. It's currently scheduled for argument in March...

...although in light of the pending impeachment, it might get put on a faster track. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121319zr_1a7d.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverbendsJoe (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:08 PM

11. Drag it out until it's past the election.

Thatís their plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverbendsJoe (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:54 PM

26. March? And what will they do until then?

Hear pressing cases about speed cameras, soda straws, and Disney copyrights? WTF?

Rome is burning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:53 PM

6. June at the latest


Unless the argument schedule is moved up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:46 PM

3. Republicans have an interesting interpretation of the Constitution....some might even say perverted.

After all there is no clause in the Constitution that gives the Court the power to block Congress from conducting its own investigation into the actions of a President.
In fact should the Court try to force such a thing it in of itself would be a violation of the Constitution as the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress to be a check on a President and they cannot do that job should the Court try to block them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:00 PM

7. Yup. Will they stand for the Constitution or

not. Thatís what it comes down to. There are 4 we know will stand for the Constitution. If there isnít at least one more, what then? ...... I sure hope our Democratic Party leaders and key progressive organizations would step up in that case and help mobilize massive protests ó like a 10 million person march on DC! ... And even then, what then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:59 PM

22. They will almost certainly find some nitpicky reason why only in this case, drumpf is above the law.

My expectation is that Roberts, Russian Repug that he is, will side with the other 4 rw radicals. I pray I'm wrong, but would be shocked if so - mind you, happily shocked and rejoicing, but still shocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 10:30 PM

27. My thought is you won't be shocked. We need to

come to grips with that. We need to be ready for that. Not simply react. Are we going to be? I honestly donít know. Iím honestly not confident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 10:48 AM

31. What do we do when we realize we're officially a fascist state?

Will this be enough, SCOTUS shredding the constitution? I don't see a civil insurrection as working, I see us getting slaughtered by drumpf's military. Voting - ha - we know he will steal the election any way he can , all holds removed once Senate doesn't remove him. Can a blue wave overwhelm his treachery, sadly, I don't know. Would he even leave if he doesn't win, I think that's extremely doubtful.
So, what I will do is go back to my volunteer efforts for Florida Dems, hopefully around the first of the year, and work my ass off for Dems in 2020. If he steals the 2020 election, that's when it gets down to decision time - fight or flight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:08 PM

10. It will be interesting to see what line of questioning the justices take

Since it is Congress' job alone to investigate the President, this should be ruled as non-justiciable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VMA131Marine (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:35 PM

16. If non-compliance with a Congressional subpoena was non justiciable, how would it be enforced?

I guarantee that the counsel for the committees didn't accidentally forget to argue non-justiciability. And it was not surprising that in the case brought by the Ways and Means Committee to enforce their demand for Trump's tax returns, it was Trump's side that argued non-justiciability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:39 PM

21. I guess I meant non-justiciable in that

POTUS cannot ask the courts to protect him in this type of case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VMA131Marine (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 07:27 AM

29. It doesn't work that way.

If POTUS can't ask the courts to quash a subpoena, Congress can't ask the courts to enforce a subpoena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

38. The courts can tell Trump that the subpoena is valid

But they have no enforcement mechanism. Itís not even clear that they could do anything to hold him in contempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VMA131Marine (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 03:17 PM

39. the subpoenas are directed to financial institutions not Trump

Mazars and Deutsche Bank.

And they sure as heck can be held in contempt if they don't comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:18 PM

19. +1,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:50 PM

4. We all know how this is going to end

5-4 vote where SCOTUS twists the Constitution in knots trying to justify why Trump is allowed to keep his taxes private.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:01 PM

8. The outcome of the U.S. basically hinges on this

And they won't decide until June??????????????????

Any one want to make book on how they rule??????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:32 PM

23. I think it will end with 500k marching on D.C. and thousands arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 07:09 AM

41. If the decision favors Trump, it will probably be limited to these cases,

just like Bush v. Gore. Conservatives don't want to take away their own power to investigate a Democratic president. Can you say Benghazi?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 03:05 PM

43. Yep, they'll just put an asterisk on it like they did in Bush v. Gore

TOTAL HORSESHIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:07 PM

9. Quite a delay to tell POTUS he is not above the law?

I'm trying to see this one as another ridiculous delay attempt, of the inevitable, AND not SCOTUS being proven also corrupted?

Meanwhile, that's a lot of time for the perfect caller to show more of his unhinged glazed donut side?

Also time for his crue of the bestest people to do even more YUGER desperate whatevers, with really nice optics come election time!?!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:24 PM

13. I am no constitutional scholar but I would say this has the makings of

a real constitutional crisis from the get go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:27 PM

14. Lower courts ruled against Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:35 PM

15. Trump should lose this, hands down. Remember US v Nixon 1974.


Unanimous SCOTUS ruling that Nixon must comply with a subpoena & hand over the Watergate tapes.

I'm not an expert but I really don't see how today's SCOTUS could throw that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 05:46 PM

18. SCOTUS is taking a slow approach and not feeding impeachment in the present time frame

No matter how they rule in June, it will not play well for Trump. Even if they side with him, the public will know the Court is crooked, rigged, stacked, and political, which will feed Trump's ouster at the polls. This Court clearly does not want to rule in a political way, that was the gist of voter suppression cases, they left it to the states because if they set themselves up as final arbiters, all they will get is more and more cases that go this way and that way. Some problems need time to fester.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:10 PM

25. Trump's base does not care that the SC is rigged for Trump and thus in their favor.

Indeed, it could well inspire even more of them to vote for Trump. They want LGBTQ people criminalized and their civil rights taken away, womenís rights removed (even including birth control), the ability to prevent people who do not believe as they do from exercising their civil rights in the name of religious freedom, all non-white immigrants barred from entering the US, all undocumented immigrants rounded up and deported no matter how long theyíve been here, citizenship revoked for non-white minorities not born here, and voting rights reserved for white people, to name a few. This sounds absolutely nuts, but then again itís Trump supporters and theyíre all nuts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 05:16 PM

34. They don't??????????

"This Court clearly does not want to rule in a political way"

I disagree, esp after the outright travesty of how the last two justices were "installed".......

The Supremes in 2000 Presidential Election??????? They had absolutely no legal or constitutional law or right that allowed them to intervene and "install" W the winner. The voting in Florida was a states rights issue, Florida Law dictated a re-count, the re-count was halted by the Supreme Court, therefore allowing for W to infest the white house......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 03:25 PM

33. They may rule in favor of Trump because they can.

The fascists, er I mean "conservatives" will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. They don't give shit about precedents or any legal forms. the always use excuses like "original intent" which sound plausible to the some in the public. A good example is the Secong amendment. No court in the land had ever read "well regulated militi" as right to individual gun ownership. That's over 170 years of precedent. It went out the window with NRA "donations". Bush vs. Gore was a complete sham. In citizens United Roberts took the opportunity to screw us all with judicial over reach. Refusing to deal with gerrymandering and ignoring the "one person one vote" principle drove another nail in the Republics coffin.
I have assumed for a long time that those placed in important positions by the Republicans have something in their dossier that guarantees their loyalty. The whole thing reminds me of a gang where you have to commit a felony as part of your initiation. This guarantees loyalty, since you could be snitched out if you don't tow the line. I know it sounds cynical,and can't be true in all cases but the one thing I've learned in fifty years of observing politics is you can't be too cynical about the GOP.
They will occasionally bend a little to give the illusion of fairness because they know they never were elected by any but a few corrupt politicians. The whole Supreme Court needs an overhaul in the way nominees are picked. I think there should be at least 20 as it might be harder to Roosevelt's "court packing scheme" actually did work because the "justices" realized this could happen in the future. They reversed themselves on child labor and other issues by 1940 and withdrew from the anti union "freedom for contract" BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scruffy1 (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 05:26 PM

35. Bravo Scruffy Uno

Extremely well said.................

To me, the true "Nightmare Before Christmas" is that so many dems are just NOW finally waking up to what you and I have been screaming at the top of our lungs since 1980. And now,.....it is most assuredly the: too little, too late cliche.............We are indeed screwed, glued and tattooed.....

It is all over except the U.S. citizen's mandatory Russian Language lessons.......LOL

Katie Bar The Door, Scruffy Amigo

WASF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scruffy1 (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 05:47 PM

36. Everyone knows it will have been a FAKE TRIAL! RIGGED in Trump's favor /nt

Agree on SCOTUS. There should be a minimum age, say 50, and a retirement age. Every President should get one pick, and not more than two. There should be more justices to handle the workload. They reject a lot of cases now. Society has grown, but the size has been constant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scruffy1 (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 07:16 AM

42. Justices should have a minimum and maximum age to serve.

I used to practice law in South Carolina, and the mandatory retirement age for all judges and justices was 70. It seemed to work okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:26 PM

20. We will see if the court he put in place is bought and paid for. My guess is Kavanaugh is for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:37 PM

24. We never thought the SCOTUS would ever decide an election, either

 

But then we got Bush v Gore.
Thereís nothing stopping the five right wingers handing the government over to Trump and turning this Country into a dictatorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rollerman (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:09 AM

30. Bush v Gore is what started this downward spiral. In my mind I can draw a straight line from 2000 to

2020.

The dots connect. Anoint Bush. Move the entire nation to electronic voting. Use voting machines owned by republican vendors. With those hackable non-auditable machines take control of state governorships and legislators. With that control in hand further stack the state courts, implement voter ID laws, implement voter suppression programs, gerrymander congressional districts, ensure republican congressional seats with all the above.

Four national elections later 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and one Russian assisted election down and one Russian assisted election ahead in 2020.

Here we sit with one Russian assisted installed POTUS. 20 percent of the federal court judges appointed by Trump. One SCOTUS seat stolen and filled by "MoscowMitch". A second SCOTUS seat taken with questionable tactics. One radical AG representing the president. Ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities. One house of Congress (Senate) who seems to have conveniently forgotten their oath to "support and defend the Constitution". And bingo we have gone full circle back to the SCOTUS for the next step. Destroyed Constitution with a president who ignores the rules of law waiting for a SCOTUS decision to make him untouchable and above the law.

And PUTIN smiles at what he has gained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rollerman (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 19, 2019, 09:18 AM

44. That sounds almost hopeful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 11:05 PM

28. By the time they decide, it will be after the impeachment and Senate trial

So they can't use his taxes against him in impeachment. It's a huge win for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 01:42 PM

32. At that point, Pelosi and the House could impeach him again.

And if there is blatant evidence of money laundering, and/or tax evasion, and/or he is shown to have cosigners on his loan documents who (as it's been reported) are Russian oligarchs - they should impeach him yet again!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 06:25 PM

37. The fact they took the case

 

means they plan to protect him. End of discussion.

We have nothing left to us... Unfair elections controlled by the whims of Russian Oligarchs, and they will do it again, Senators declaring they have no intention of fairly judging him (Lindsey Graham), Congress members actively involved in the investigation that were part of the criminality and obstruction themselves....


I CALL FOR OPEN REBELLION AND MUTINY. It's the only choice they've left to us.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whynotboth (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:55 PM

40. It means four of the Justices thought it was a case that should be decided by the SCOTUS

and none of the liberals on the court dissented, which sometimes will happen when cert is granted.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if all nine justices supported granting cert.

Sorry not to obey your command to stop discussing this.

And have fun with your open rebellion and "mutiny". Don't forget to write.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread