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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Miles Archer

(18,837 posts)
Tue May 14, 2019, 02:01 PM May 2019

"In the courtroom today for Judge Mehta's hearing on Trump v Oversight Committee..."

Tim Mak
@timkmak

Was in the courtroom today for Judge Mehta's hearing on Trump v Oversight Cmte, regarding subpoena for Trump's financial docs

Judge seemed rather skeptical of Trump lawyer argument, and noted that not a single case had ruled that Congress had overstepped in subpoenas since 1880
1:01 PM · May 14, 2019 · Twitter Web Client


27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"In the courtroom today for Judge Mehta's hearing on Trump v Oversight Committee..." (Original Post) Miles Archer May 2019 OP
I thought the judge was going to rule today. wryter2000 May 2019 #1
Today isn't over yet. lunatica May 2019 #3
I'm not sure if it's over, or still in progress. Judge was supposed to rule today. n/t Miles Archer May 2019 #5
May 18th aeromanKC May 2019 #6
Thanks. wryter2000 May 2019 #8
Geesh why backtrack? I thought ruling was to be today. These judges are burying their heads in the triron May 2019 #11
Or maybe these judges want to make it harder for an appeals court to reverse their decision onenote May 2019 #19
Only on the issue of when to hold the hearing. Now he says he'll make his final decision pnwmom May 2019 #15
Fingers crossed here! lunatica May 2019 #2
We can take for granted this judge will side with Congress as will the Appeals court. The question Pepsidog May 2019 #9
Why do you take for granted the outcome in the DC Circuit? onenote May 2019 #20
Maybe I am naive, but it's hard to believe that a law that was written with such clear intent it's Pepsidog May 2019 #23
K&R... spanone May 2019 #4
C'mon, your Honor, this may well become the first judicial moment ... MFGsunny May 2019 #7
If the Supreme Court decides these cases in favor of Trump DonaldsRump May 2019 #10
He'd refue to honor it or let his people honor it. lark May 2019 #12
I agree duforsure May 2019 #14
The courts are part of the Deep State, did't you know that? LastLiberal in PalmSprings May 2019 #24
As scary or outrageous as your last three sentences sound... johnnyfins May 2019 #17
Yep Cosmocat May 2019 #25
Trump's presidential hero is Jackson... Wounded Bear May 2019 #16
This rescheduling does not bode well for the Oversight Committee. AJT May 2019 #13
How So . . ? OldManTarHeel May 2019 #18
Bush v Gore And Stare Decisis corbettkroehler May 2019 #21
Naperville stare decisis means let the decision stand. hedda_foil May 2019 #22
My Point Is The Judges Are Supposed To Observe Precedent, Under Stare Decisis corbettkroehler May 2019 #27
K&R BlueJac May 2019 #26

triron

(21,914 posts)
11. Geesh why backtrack? I thought ruling was to be today. These judges are burying their heads in the
Tue May 14, 2019, 03:08 PM
May 2019

sand!

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
15. Only on the issue of when to hold the hearing. Now he says he'll make his final decision
Tue May 14, 2019, 03:57 PM
May 2019

on the substance soon.

Pepsidog

(6,252 posts)
9. We can take for granted this judge will side with Congress as will the Appeals court. The question
Tue May 14, 2019, 02:25 PM
May 2019

then will be will the Supreme Court agree to take the case or refuse to hear the case.

onenote

(42,373 posts)
20. Why do you take for granted the outcome in the DC Circuit?
Tue May 14, 2019, 06:08 PM
May 2019

I think its more likely than not that the DC Circuit would affirm the District Court if he rules that the subpoena is valid, but it's not a slam dunk. While a majority of the judges on that court are appointees of Democratic presidents, there are two Trump appointees, one Bush 1 and one Bush 2, plus a slew of "senior status" judges appointed by Reagan. A three judge court with two Republican appointees is not out of the question.

Pepsidog

(6,252 posts)
23. Maybe I am naive, but it's hard to believe that a law that was written with such clear intent it's
Wed May 15, 2019, 12:50 AM
May 2019

hard to imagine that political considerations would play a part in the Court’s decisions. The law and the legislative intent for passing the law is so unambiguously clear that should the Court rule against Congress along political lines it would strike a devastating blow to the legitimacy of the Federal courts.

MFGsunny

(2,356 posts)
7. C'mon, your Honor, this may well become the first judicial moment ...
Tue May 14, 2019, 02:13 PM
May 2019

... of/for safeguarding what's left of our democracy

from the current wanton, willful, reckless maladministration.

DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
10. If the Supreme Court decides these cases in favor of Trump
Tue May 14, 2019, 02:33 PM
May 2019

(and I'm referring to ALL of the cases that are pending/will be pending where Trump has refused to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena), that will be devastating.

In 1974, in US v. Nixon, Nixon was banking on his appointees to side with him on the tapes/executive privilege case. Although Rehnquist recused himself, all 8 of the remaining Justices saw the damage that Nixon was doing and believed that the unanimity of a single opinion without a dissent or without a concurrence was the strongest signal to send Nixon (who, himself, was a lawyer and understood what a SCOTUS opinion means).

With Dear Leader, he's pretty clueless and not used to the law, and I am not so sure about 3 or 4 of the SCOTUS Justices. It would be great to get a unanimous decision, but with intellectually lacking folks like Kavanaugh and Thomas, I don't really have a clue what these partisans would do. The safest would be 5-4 against Trump, with CJ Roberts siding with the "liberal" wing. Not sure how Dear Leader would react to this.

lark

(22,993 posts)
12. He'd refue to honor it or let his people honor it.
Tue May 14, 2019, 03:18 PM
May 2019

He'd just say they are illegitimate and I'm not going to comply or let my people comply and what would happen? On a bd day I'd say nothing would happen, just like in Germany and we'd no longer be America land of the free and constitutional order. We'd be Trumpworld, which would be a Nazi fascist state with the constitution only meaning whatever the repugs said it did and we'd have no laws or values whatsoever. Rape would be legal, birth control a killing offense unless the man signed up for it first. Elections might or might not continue, bt they'd mean nothing because the fix would already be in.

So, either Roberts protects the constitution or we die as a nation. It has really come to that.

duforsure

(11,882 posts)
14. I agree
Tue May 14, 2019, 03:38 PM
May 2019

He refuse to obey the courts citing he's the victim and it was unfairly done to him. Then he'll go into excuse mode , and remember he's already claimed he's got an excuse for everything he does.

johnnyfins

(772 posts)
17. As scary or outrageous as your last three sentences sound...
Tue May 14, 2019, 04:10 PM
May 2019

...I don't think anyone understands how serious this is. Most DUers do, but average Joes don't. If the SCOTUS sides with POTUS on these subpoenas. Our Democratic Republic Is Done.

Wounded Bear

(58,436 posts)
16. Trump's presidential hero is Jackson...
Tue May 14, 2019, 04:01 PM
May 2019

Jackson refused to enforce an order from the SC against the State of Georgia. Basically because he was a racist and the court decided for the Cherokee nation.

https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-time-andrew-jackson-decided-to-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-the-name-of-georgias-right-to-cherokee-land/

Trump is reigniting the libertarian view that the SC is inferior to the executive and need not obey its judgements.

corbettkroehler

(1,898 posts)
21. Bush v Gore And Stare Decisis
Tue May 14, 2019, 10:33 PM
May 2019

More than any other effect from 2000 is the fact that the Supreme Court issued a single-purpose ruling, specifically stating that it ignored all precedent but also created no precedent.

Trump's whole team relies on this in order to rewrite the letter and spirit of the Constitution to fit their treachery.

Since this is sure to go the the Roberts court, Stare Decisis will be used as a similar cudgel to undo centuries of jurisprudence.

hedda_foil

(16,368 posts)
22. Naperville stare decisis means let the decision stand.
Wed May 15, 2019, 12:28 AM
May 2019

You're talking about the opposite so I'm a bit confused 😕.

corbettkroehler

(1,898 posts)
27. My Point Is The Judges Are Supposed To Observe Precedent, Under Stare Decisis
Wed May 15, 2019, 02:44 PM
May 2019

It is the foundation of western jurisprudence but people we used to call "strict constructionist" now disregard precedent to fit their ideology, which flies in the face of all sound jurisprudence.

Justice is supposed to be blind. She ain't anymore. She watches Faux News all day, every day.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"In the courtroom today f...