The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision

[kentuck]

Last edited Wed May 13, 2020, 07:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Or will they pass the hot potato?

The cases about Donald Trump's taxes and finances have finally made it to their door. Will they make a decision to protect our laws and our Constitution? Or will they fold to the partisan flames? The partisan divisions are deep and wide.

Will they be able to put aside their own partisan divisions and protect our People and our Constitution?

What will they choose?

(On edit) The Supreme Court will likely not rule on this case until this summer, if at all?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I don't remember the USSC specifically ruling against Trump.

Am I remembering wrong?

[Lochloosa]

4. They haven't ruled yet. They are hearing arguments today I believe.

[katmondoo]

2. I have very little faith in this Court protecting the People and the Constitution.

[Jamastiene]

8. This

The fix is in. Honestly, America's government, all three branches, are now openly hostile to the People and our Constitution.

[lostnfound]

31. Agreed. They will support trump one way or another. Nt

[malaise]

3. They had better

rein in this monster

[SunSeeker]

5. The conservatives will cravenly unite to make it 5-4 to protect Trump.

[kentuck]

6. Courts have been unpredictable at times in our history.

Let us hope these Justices are strong enough to stand up for our country and our Constitution, over the whims of any one person.

[SunSeeker]

19. There are no grounds for optimism here.

SCOTUS should not have even taken up the cases. The law is clear and well-settled. There are no conflicting decisions among the Circuits that need to be resolved. SCOTUS should have denied review and let the appellate decisions against Trump stand and become final.

But no, they reached down and pulled these cases up for review. Worse, the conservatives appear to have conjured a ground for letting Trump avoid subpoenas: that it's a political question that can't be resolved by the judiciary.

The Supreme Court asked all parties to address whether the disputes were a “political question” beyond reach of the judiciary. All said last week that the court should reach the merits of the cases. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-finances/2020/05/11/dd9bd598-92df-11ea-91d7-cf4423d47683_story.html

I predict SCOTUS will rule 5-4 that it's a political question, they will overrule the lower court rulings against Trump, and cynically say it is up to Congress, not courts, to enforce these subpoenas (through the Sargent-At-Arms, Impeachment, etc.), when they know damn well these enforcement mechanisms are ineffective against Trump.

[kentuck]

20. If it gets too hot for them, I suppose they could send it back to the lower Courts?

Trump wants "his" Court to make a decision.

[SunSeeker]

21. On what ground could they send the cases back to the lower courts? nt

[2naSalit]

25. They have several options...

One is to send it back to lower courts asking for a new approach to the claims as the argument is weak is one of them.

Glenn Kirschner explains it in this video:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017581677

[Mike Niendorff]

34. I think this is the most likely outcome.

Followed by 4 additional Justices being appointed to the Court in 2021.

see: 28 USC 1.



MDN

[BadGimp]

51. THIS!

[CousinIT]

26. This is what they'll do. n/t

[maxrandb]

7. 5-4 that we live in a dictatorship

Retrumplicans have been working ruthlessly to this point for 80 years, while Democrats kevetched about not getting a pony.

Today's the payoff for their hard work, and Democrats "thoughtful reflection"..."yes, Donnie Shit for Brains is an unqualified, inhuman racist assclown supported by Nazis, but Hillary Clinton one time said something nice about Reagan, and I'd rather have a beer with Bernie

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that our country will be dealt a death blow today.

Retrumplicans have spent decades constructing their deathstar, there's no Luke Skywalker coming to the rescue.

[kentuck]

9. It is a very important decision.

In my opinion.

[DFW]

10. More like the landmark decision of John Roberts

It's pretty much a given how the other 8 will decide. Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will give Trump anything he wants. RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will say the opposite, that no one is above the law.

Roberts owes Bush, Cheney and Rove. He does not owe Trump.

Some Chief Justices don't care a bit about how history judges them. I think Roberts wavers about this, and cares more than Rehnquist ever did about his judicial legacy. Roberts knows how history will judge him if he votes with Trump on this one, and is probably weighing the impact of his two options on his record. His natural tendency is to give Republicans anything they want. The part of him that took an oath to uphold the law and interpret it to the best of his ability will side with the "no one is above the law" justices. The big question is which Roberts will win out--the Republican Justice, or merely typical Republican justice.

[kentuck]

11. It would be nice to see Roberts stand up. It would be good for our country. However...

...the Court will probably kick the can on down the road and not open up any investigations before the election?

[Amishman]

13. I see Roberts playing ball, he is beyond terrified by the talk of packing the court

I see him authoring the majority on a 5-4, strongly limited in scope and so specific as to be impossible to apply to other situations.

[DFW]

17. If they can argue their way there, I'm sure they will try n/t

[Girard442]

33. Agreed. If the Roberts Court rules for Trump, the world will see them as total toadies, but...

...if they rule against, he'll tell them to go pound sand and the illusion of the Court's power will be shattered. Got to get that can down the road, no matter how lame the argument.

[Freddie]

14. Roberts' legacy

Will be elderly people with canes, wearing masks, standing in line for hours to vote in a pandemic.
I have absolutely no faith in him doing the right thing.

[rampartc]

16. roberts was barely discernable at the impeachment trial

trump will win this case

[DFW]

18. He punted it because he could

At the trial, the outcome was never in doubt. Here, it rests on his shoulders.

[NNadir]

32. Excellent analysis. The weight of history will be very harsh on these times.

Roberts can either be Justice Taney or Justice Warren in history.

[Vinca]

12. I don't see how they can side with Trump without overturning the Nixon tapes case and

the Paula Jones case during Clinton. It's been long established that presidents are not above the law.

[kentuck]

15. I think you are correct.

If they follow precedent.

Of course, the Trump lawyers could argue that the cases are not similar. I think that would be a stretch to persuade a majority?

[DFW]

23. Nixon was the last Republican president judged not to have been above the law.

Reagan and Bush II never even got a slap on the wrist.

I have no doubt that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have sided with Nixon on the tapes issue.

[dalton99a]

29. +1

[Mike Niendorff]

38. see: Bush v Gore

Honestly, that's really the only case that needs to be looked at here.

Judicial integrity died on 12/12/2000.

The lifeless corpse has been been rotting on the bench ever since.


MDN

[SmartVoter22]

22. Very detailed article on today's SCOTUS - Trump - DeutscheBank Loans

Found a very detailed article in this case. It's worth a read for those really into this SCOTUS case. It's not all about Trump, it's about international money loans applied to the Patriot Act in 2011 that changed oversight . Congress is investigating Trump's overseas loans to update the laws It gets bizarre but shows clearly three areas that are of concern to everyone.

https://forensicnews.net/2020/05/08/what-congress-might-find-in-trumps-deutsche-bank-records/

You can listen to SCOtUS verbal arguments live 10am Eastern Time
https://www.scotusblog.com/

[Duppers]

49. Thank you!

[Buckeyeblue]

24. This will either be a unanimous ruling or no ruling

In other words, if the court cannot come together 9-0 (maybe even 8-1), they will kick it back to the lower court to reconsider based on some anomaly. In other words they will ensure no ruling until well after the elections.

It's a cowardly move but Roberts doesn't seem to be a model of courage.

[druidity33]

27. This will be the Trade-off...

for voting to keep Obamacare...



edited to add i think Roberts will be the deciding vote

[doc03]

28. What does it mean if they make no ruling? Will that be more months or years

of appeals or what. I don't get it you have judges that rule against the president it goes all the way
to the SCOTUS. I thought that is why we have the SCOTUS they have the last word. If that is what will happen
it goes back to lower courts and is held up for more months or years I have no doubt the SCOTUS will refuse to make a decision.

[kentuck]

30. That is a good argument.

[bluestarone]

35. NO WAY can they agree with tRUMP sooo they will

NOT DECIDE! they will; send it back for further review!!!!!

[Maeve]

36. If they rule for tRump, the republic is dead

Sorry, but I can see no other conclusion. Only by declaring that no one is above the law can they save the American experiment.

[Duppers]

50. +1000

[The Wizard]

37. The Court is no longer Supreme

but rather mediocre. They will convolute the language and stretch definitions to fit the contorted and corrupt positions of "Dear Leader."

[bucolic_frolic]

39. They'll side with Trump

IRS records are private papers between an individual and the government, and while releasing them is tradition, norm, and beneficial to society for elected politicians, they release them at their own discretion.

Did you really expect to see Roberts' tax returns? Or did we already? I have no idea.

[Ford_Prefect]

43. His taxes and other investment matters would have come during his vetting

years ago. While they may not have been of public record they would have been seen by those involved in vetting him. I doubt he would have been nominated or approved without them, then.

Today? Who knows?

[lark]

40. The RW Russian Repug 5 chose long ago, money over country.

They do not deviate from that and will ensure that nothing of drumpfs' comes out until after the election, if ever. They have already basically shredded the constitution and will continue that in their decision, basically coronating him dictator.

[zentrum]

41. Majority will choose Corporate.

That's what they were nominated to do. The hell with corruption.

[kskiska]

42. Didn't they fudge their decision in Bush vs Gore

by saying that it shouldn't be taken as a "precedent"?

[Ford_Prefect]

45. That was the most narrow Fig Leaf ever cited. It was the key to open the way to Trump.

[Sneederbunk]

44. I will bet no records will be released before the election.

[CaptainTruth]

46. Bill Clinton & Paula Jones seems to be a precedent.

Clinton claimed immunity while in office from prosecution for things he did as a private citizen. SCOTUS said no, he didn't have that immunity.

I'm no expert, but that seems like the same kind of immunity Trump is claiming.

[NoMoreRepugs]

47. I give it 10 to 1 odds they favor continuing down the

road of bending the Constitution in favor of a more ReichWing approach to governance. Money, corporate influence and homage to mega wealthy old white men at the center of everything.

[kairos12]

48. They will dodge and delay and push it beyond the election.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

52. We will need to rebuild a Supreme Court from this Suppine Court.

[budkin]

53. 5-4 incoming

I lost faith in the SCOTUS in December of 2000.