General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"In the courtroom today for Judge Mehta's hearing on Trump v Oversight Committee..."
@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
Link to tweet
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)Was I wrong?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)aeromanKC
(3,307 posts)Seems new date is may 18th.
From another article: "Mehta will reportedly allow both sides to submit additional evidence until May 18."
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/were-not-going-to-drag-this-out-judge-immediately-sets-tone-as-trump-lawyers-object-to-fast-tracked-subpoena-fight/
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)I guess I can wait that long.
triron
(21,914 posts)sand!
onenote
(42,373 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)on the substance soon.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Cant take it for granted what the outcome will be anymore.
Pepsidog
(6,252 posts)then will be will the Supreme Court agree to take the case or refuse to hear the case.
onenote
(42,373 posts)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)hard to imagine that political considerations would play a part in the Courts 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.
spanone
(135,627 posts)MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)... of/for safeguarding what's left of our democracy
from the current wanton, willful, reckless maladministration.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)(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)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.
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.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,536 posts)That's why they keep ruling against Fat Donnie.
johnnyfins
(772 posts)...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.
Nm
Wounded Bear
(58,436 posts)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.
AJT
(5,240 posts)OldManTarHeel
(435 posts)Just curious as to why you feel this way. TIA
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)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)You're talking about the opposite so I'm a bit confused 😕.
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)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.