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

General Discussion

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

28. Or, narrow could mean ...

Reply to LiberalFighter (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 10, 2020, 11:38 AM

Jul 2020

... “We don’t want to be involved in politics. We’re going to allow such cases to languish in Court, for years, if necessary, until the person Congress is investigating is no longer in office and the issue is moot.”

That’s what is actually happening, regardless of what they say.

-Laelth

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now that you have had time to assimilate it, what do you think of yesterday's SC decisions? [View all] kentuck Jul 2020 OP

Both rulings took compromise positions. Laelth Jul 2020 #1

Definitely! kentuck Jul 2020 #2

Well k-lie said that's still his position soothsayer Jul 2020 #6

Compromise but still surprisingly strong tilt toward the rule of law. lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #14

In Mazars, the Court SAID that the President is not above the law. Laelth Jul 2020 #18

I've heard people call it a "compromise" ruling.... I don't really see it that way. Happy Hoosier Jul 2020 #3

The Mazars opinion wasn't the only possible answer. Laelth Jul 2020 #8

Possibly... Happy Hoosier Jul 2020 #9

That appears to be the Court's argument, yes. Laelth Jul 2020 #10

I agree. kentuck Jul 2020 #11

Can't agree with that Happy Hoosier Jul 2020 #20

But should it be for "legislative" purposes only? kentuck Jul 2020 #21

I stated my position above... Happy Hoosier Jul 2020 #22

And we'd answer those subpoenas. Laelth Jul 2020 #26

+1 My only complaint is they ignored the 1920s law that requires the taxes be handed over. lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #15

Nope. Laelth Jul 2020 #24

Did they say something specific about the law? lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #30

Not to my knowledge. Laelth Jul 2020 #31

I don't think the law is struck down then. lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #33

No. It's not. It's still on the books. Laelth Jul 2020 #34

So if Congress is investigating Russian influence, greymattermom Jul 2020 #4

Don't worry, as soon as we have a Democratic President the court will allow any kind of subpoena spanone Jul 2020 #5

+1. Zero credibility since December 12, 2000 dalton99a Jul 2020 #7

SCROTUS needs to be expanded and subject to term limits. lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #16

I heard Adam Schiff being interviewed last night on Lawrence O'Donnell mnhtnbb Jul 2020 #12

Excellent. He knows what he's talking about. lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #17

I agree with both rulings. Demsrule86 Jul 2020 #13

I'm pissed that it took 15 months to get to a decision... Silent3 Jul 2020 #19

What happened to the 1924 law that states the Treasury "shall" turn over such tax records on the jalan48 Jul 2020 #23

Possible that they view that as an assault on separation of powers....which is what Demsrule86 Jul 2020 #29

Narrow could just mean they need to be more specific. LiberalFighter Jul 2020 #25

Right. kentuck Jul 2020 #27

Or, narrow could mean ... Laelth Jul 2020 #28

+1 jalan48 Jul 2020 #32