The Supreme Court procedural ruling in one of the Trump tax cases - What you should know

[jberryhill]

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

On November 14, 2019, the US DC Court of Appeals affirmed the district court decision that Trump's tax returns must be turned over to the House Ways and Means Committee. As is obvious in a case like this, the appellate court had stayed the district court decision while they considered the case. To do otherwise - i.e. to require the release of the documents while the court decided whether to compel release of the documents - would make no sense (unless one is a determined idiot).

Under Rule 13 of Supreme Court procedure, Trump would normally have 90 days to file a writ of certiori, which is a fancy name for "an argument as to why the Supreme Court should hear the case". It is not the case brief or argument, but simply a petition that states reasons why it should be taken up.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf


Rule13. Review on Certiorari : Time for Petitioning

1. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is fled with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment. A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discre-tionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is fled with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying discretionary review.

------------

So, under the normal rule, that petition would not be due until February 12, 2020 - 90 days from November 14, 2019.

Normally, in a direct conflict between two Constitutional actors - in this instance Congress and the President - a controversy will merit review by the Supreme Court. They don't have to do so, and we actually won't know until the Supreme Court considers the writ of certiori. And, again, since the case revolves around whether to compel disclosure of certain documents, it is a no-brainer that the Court would stay the decision until they see at least a writ of certiori.

What this means is that under the normal rules, Trump would not even have to file the writ of certiori until well into next year.

HOWEVER, what the Supreme Court did yesterday, as is in their power to do, was to accelerate the schedule for this case.

Instead of allowing Trump until February to file the writ, the Court has required Trump to file it next week, on December 5, 2019.

That's a good thing. The Court has put this case on an extremely fast track, and is not going to drag this thing out.

I can't for the life of me figure out why that pisses off a contingent at DU who seem single-mindedly focused on attacking the way the US court system works. What might be motivating that kind of thing is left to your imagination.

[USALiberal]

1. Thanks for this! Nt

[hlthe2b]

2. Could you please stop writing such condescending posts. Many of us know what is going on

and perhaps those who don't are not legally trained or equally likely, have not had the time to fully read up on the implications since the report of the "stay" late yesterday.

If you want to educate other DUers, fine, but this is about the sixth post of yours that made it a point to attack other Duers, to underscore your contempt for their lack of knowledge, even to refer to them as (your quote) the "desperately ignorant."

[jberryhill]

4. I'll do me, thanks

This:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12729880

No, I'm not going to stop reacting negatively on that sort of thing.

[Lochloosa]

13. Please continue to do so. It helps to understand what various rulings and procedures are....

on these cases.

[hlthe2b]

28. I see you edited your post to delete the incendiary language.

I am glad to see it.

[Politicub]

35. I appreciate your post, OP. It helped me with understanding context.

[Karadeniz]

59. Thanks for the information....you can't be too basic for some of us, well, me!❤

[bluestarone]

5. TYVM!

I did feel upset, reading "desperately Ignorant" comment. This is very important to many of us, and we will have questions from the great lawyers here. We need to feel free to ask them. Again TY for this comment!!

[still_one]

6. There is only one condescending post I see here, and it isn't from the OP

[hlthe2b]

7. Case in point. The OP has edited his post, so I assume he took my point to heart.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2019, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

[MineralMan]

10. It wasn't condescending. It was addressing a certain group

of DUers that does not seem to care what is really happening in the courts, but is always happy to dump on our judicial branch.

The information in the post was clear and accurate. Why are you objecting to the opinion portion of the post. We are all allowed to share our opinions here, as you know.

[hlthe2b]

15. I am objecting to the condescending attack on other DUers, not on any attempt to educate.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes, of course you are.

I read the OP and I also read your post.

[hlthe2b]

17. But of course you did.

[MineralMan]

19. Yup.

[hlthe2b]

26. The OP has edited his post, so I assume he took my point to heart.

Perhaps you should as well.

[StarfishSaver]

11. The OP is expressing a frustration shared by me and others, not just about the kneejerk reaction

that some have here to every court development, but to the consistent refusal to even consider what he's been explaining for weeks.

I've seen that many of those complaining the loudest not only don't have any knowledge about the legal process, they are extremely resistant to any information provided by people who do have that knowledge. Instead, they just keep posting the same misinformation over and over and then attack everyone who tries to provide accurate assessments of what's really going on, accusing us of being "condescending," etc. I don't blame him for being irritated.

[hlthe2b]

14. So that is your defense for attacking other DUers? I have seen you try to educate, as I and others

have as well. You have not done so in such an attacking, condescending manner, which btw, is a TOS violation-- the last I checked. But more important for me is respectful discourse. We are not Trumpists. We should not emulate them even in political discussions. Do you honestly think that most people here who are unaware, unfamiliar or lack any background whatsoever in legal issues will benefit from being derided in the manner of the OP? I guess some do like being abused verbally. I'm not one of them. Nor will I be silent as some bring these tactics to DU.

[StarfishSaver]

20. He wasn't attacking DUers

His comment was directed to a certain group of people who consistently do exactly what he said they do. If you don't engage in the tactics he's calling out, he wasn't talking about you, so there's no need to feel offended.

[Coventina]

24. A post on DU that specifically attacks a prior post by a DUer is attacking a DUer

Which is a violation of TOS.

If the OP found that prior post to be so offensive, the correct method would have been to alert on the original post, or simply posted their own post without attacking the prior one.

[Kaleva]

29. Actually it'd be a voilation of community standards and not a violation of TOS

TOS violations can get one banned. The worst that can happen when a community standard is violated is that the post gets hidden and one is blocked from posting on the thread.

[Coventina]

32. Thanks for the clarification.

However, my point stands about attacking fellow DUers.

[Kaleva]

57. True

[hlthe2b]

25. The OP has edited his post, so I assume he took my point to heart.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Or maybe he just figured it wasn't worth the drama

[hlthe2b]

30. self-created.

[Coventina]

21. Thank you for this. I completely agree with you.

[usaf-vet]

36. Thank you for explaining what is likely to happen next. That last time I looked I didn't....

.... have a law degree. And now I know what this centurion thing is all about.
Snark...snark!

[demmiblue]

44. +1

I appreciate the info, but could do without the insults.

[safeinOhio]

3. Very well put.

I'm finding friends that suffer from knee jerk reaction to all this. I try very hard to not let emotions rule. Better to observe, take note and then research first. Like an Anthropologist might observe human or animal behavior. By doing it that way the Anthropologist doesn't miss important behavior that they might miss if they included their own emotions.

Very hard to do in these times, but we can be aware of it and try to lean in that direction. Don't want to miss anything.

[wryter2000]

43. I get tired of posts that always assume the worst, no matter what the subject

For example, if I post, "We have to get out the vote," someone invariably will respond with, "What's the point? The elections are rigged."

It got really offensive during the Obama years, when I was a mod. I can't tell you how many "Obama = Bush," or "Obama is worse than Bush," posts were allowed to stand as "criticism from the left." Any idiot could see that wasn't true, and if that observation is a put-down of DUers, tough.

[blaze]

8. Thanks for posting this

It's too easy to get swept up in the drama and, in this case, a boat load of misinformation.

This is good news.

[spanone]

9. K&R...

[MFGsunny]

12. Totally hat tip worthy. Much obliged.

[MineralMan]

18. Thanks for your clarification. I hadn't looked into that yet.

And you're right, too, that some DUers react immediately and emotionally, whether or not they understand what they're actually reacting to. A little time to understand what stories actually mean is always well-spent.

Thanks again.

[StarfishSaver]

22. The immediate negative reaction is understandable

What's annoying is when the same people do it over and over, no matter what information they're given or how often they're given it. I understand his frustration.

[stopdiggin]

55. it's the unwillingness to BECOME educated

that eventually wears some of us down. I don't have a degree in law. Doesn't mean I can listen occasionally.

[ripcord]

45. How very conservative of them

How many times have we times have we called out the right on knee jerk reactions and posting through ignorance, it is really depressing to see it here.

[2naSalit]

23. Thanks!

That's what I suspected but hadn't had time to investigate whether I was right about it.

I like it when a knowledgeable DUer informs us in this way, please carry on!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Thank you for explaining this.

I see that you've stirred up a little controversy on this thread, but that's OK. There is always an entirely predictable overreaction to some procedural action by a court, like this granting of a stay, in which it is assumed to be some kind of victory awarded to Trump by a cabal of evil GOP judges, when in fact it's nothing but an entirely routine thing that would have happened no matter who the parties were. In this case, as you pointed out, the matter has been expedited, which is a good thing. The stay had to be granted, because it makes no sense if somebody is appealing the release of documents and the court allows the release of the documents before they can even decide whether to hear the appeal.

I sometimes try to get into a thread before the hissy fits start but that's a losing battle. I just wish people would at least read the entire cited source before freaking out.

[Coventina]

33. It would also be helpful if DUers didn't call each other "desperately ignorant"

But I guess I'm just old-fashioned that way.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. Maybe so, but immediately knee-jerking without understanding what's going on

tends to invite that sort of description. Often the answer is right there in the cited source, so usually all one has to do is go to the link, read what's there, and maybe even google a few things. That way nobody is exasperated over a post displaying a lack of understanding, and nobody else is accused of ignorance.

[ripcord]

46. Ignorance is not possessing knowledge

Which is exactly what happened here, it is not a synonym for stupid.

[Coventina]

48. So if I called you "desperately ignorant" you would be fine with that.

It's a good thing to educate (it's what I do for a living), but I don't start out my first day of class calling my students "desperately ignorant."

Just simple courtesy, is all that is needed.

[ripcord]

58. But the truth is your students are desperately ignorant on the first day of class

And yes if I was posting knee jerk reactions after reading headlines I would expect to be called on it, it wouldn't be the first time. The OP was truthful in his response and sometimes the truth hurts but it doesn't mean people don't need to hear it.

[pandr32]

37. I appreciate your posts

[BigBearJohn]

38. Thanks for your post. I appreciate your efforts. /nt

[Midnightwalk]

39. Thanks for details. Couple of questions

I read rule 13 and see 13.5 allows the 90 days to be extended by another 60 days in some cases but don’t see where it can be shortened. Obviously it can.

What allows the court to shorten the time? Is there something I could read or a way to think about what rules the court can change?

Scrolling to rule 13 I happened to read 12.5 which confused me. For anyone following that says.

No more than 30 days after a case has been placed on the docket, a respondent seeking to fle a conditional cross- petition (i. e., a cross-petition that otherwise would be un- timely) shall fle, with proof of service as required by Rule 29, 40 copies of the cross-petition prepared as required by Rule 33.1, except that a cross-petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39 shall comply with Rule 12.2.

Is that saying that if the court accepts the case the other side can appeal something else within 30 days after the case is accepted?

The appeals process and stays like this remind me of a quality control process. Is there a principle similar to “do no harm” in the law?

[onenote]

41. Under Rule 21, the Court has broad authority to entertain all sorts of motions

[Midnightwalk]

50. Oh it was a motion

Thanks. Didn’t find the brief in this case but did find the prosecutor brief in Mazars USA. Sure enough the last item was

This Court Should Expeditiously Resolve The Petition For Certiorari
And, If Necessary, The Merits Of This Dispute

And it gave good reasons for why. I probably should have realized it was a motion from our side.

The details are fascinating to this non lawyer.

[lark]

40. Don't kick us bro, we are not all attorneys.

The law is complex and sometimes seems devious and a lot of us here know that SCOTUS majority is very oligarch friendly and we've seen first hand their animus to workers, women and their subservience to the fascist oligarchs. Of course we didn't understand the weeds of this ruling, before your good summary, so it's rather natural that we "assume" thst this is bad news - because almost everything coming from there is indeed bad for the country.

[stopdiggin]

56. thanks. your post goes a long ways in demonstrating the prejudice

that the OP is trying to combat. You've given us the very definition of "knee jerk."

[mbusby]

42. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

William Shakespeare - Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2

[panader0]

47. I'm glad the Supreme Court accelerated the schedule,

But I have two questions: Why did they do that, and will trump's lawyers
have enough time?

[jberryhill]

49. The answer to your first question is - Because the House Democrats asked for it

The thing that gets me going here, and which some folks take exception to, is that this was a WIN for the House Democrats.

OUR SIDE requested the accelerated schedule in the course of arguing over whether the order should be stayed pending appeal. The House Democrats position was that if the order was going to be be stayed then the appeal should be expedited.

So then, the House Democrats WON that argument, and here we are.

On point two - yes, plenty of time. I think anyone could bang out an argument as to why the Court should consider it. Doesn't mean they will, but it's not hard.

That also goes for the appeal brief itself.

Figure - Trump already argued this to the District Court. The District Court said "no". So on appeal Trump has to file a brief explaining why, in view of existing case law, the District Court got it wrong.

On appeal the Supreme Court, the brief is pretty easy to write, if you think about it. It's the same brief as before, but only has one additional decision to explain away or to argue was wrong - i.e. the appellate court decision in question.

[onenote]

52. And Trump's lawyers themselves did not object to the House request for an expedited schedule

[elleng]

51. Procedure confuses people, and ignorance abounds.

[Adsos Letter]

53. I've told you before, and I'll tell you again...

Your contributions to this site are enormous. Thank you.

[guillaumeb]

54. Recommended.

and speaking to this:

Instead of allowing Trump until February to file the writ, the Court has required Trump to file it next week, on December 5, 2019.

That's a good thing. The Court has put this case on an extremely fast track, and is not going to drag this thing out.

I can't for the life of me figure out why that pisses off a contingent at DU who seem single-mindedly focused on attacking the way the US court system works. What might be motivating that kind of thing is left to your imagination.

Process can take time. I am not a lawyer, but I was a union representative, and explaining how some complex grievances can take 12-18 months of process at the 4 levels prior to arriving at arbitration was something that I explained to members on a regular basis.