HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Think we just lost the Su...

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:39 AM

Think we just lost the Supreme Court case

Kavanaugh softballed House Counsel Doug Letter with a chance to clarify a limiting principle on a House subpoena power and Letter could not do it. Ugh he’s so bad. He’s always been bad. Ugh ugh.

38 replies, 3291 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Think we just lost the Supreme Court case (Original post)
Loki Liesmith May 2020 OP
a kennedy May 2020 #1
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #3
onecaliberal May 2020 #12
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #19
onecaliberal May 2020 #25
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #2
TruckFump May 2020 #5
BComplex May 2020 #15
jimfields33 May 2020 #4
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #7
jimfields33 May 2020 #13
SoonerPride May 2020 #6
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #14
SoonerPride May 2020 #20
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #22
Mike 03 May 2020 #8
idziak4ever1234 May 2020 #9
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #16
malaise May 2020 #10
Iliyah May 2020 #11
Takket May 2020 #17
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #24
kentuck May 2020 #18
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #27
BComplex May 2020 #21
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #23
BComplex May 2020 #26
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #28
Amishman May 2020 #30
qazplm135 May 2020 #29
rusty fender May 2020 #31
duforsure May 2020 #32
grantcart May 2020 #33
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #34
grantcart May 2020 #35
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #38
octoberlib May 2020 #36
Loki Liesmith May 2020 #37

Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:40 AM

1. Justice Beer Man???

Will NEVER forget “I like beer”. Loser. Ugh indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a kennedy (Reply #1)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:40 AM

3. He tried to HELP our side though.

Our counsel was terrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #3)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:44 AM

12. The fucking precedent should save our side. I'm sick of republicans acting like

the law only applies to democrats or democratic principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #12)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:46 AM

19. What we are tired of is not a good court argument

Our lawyer did a clownishly bad job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #19)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:53 AM

25. of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:40 AM

2. Either Roberts saves the day by inventing a limiting principle or we are screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #2)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:42 AM

5. Agree. EOM

This is the DU member formerly known as TruckFump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #2)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:45 AM

15. Roberts has been carrying trumps water all day.

Our lawyer is so friggin' bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:41 AM

4. Maybe RBG or another liberal can clean it up by asking again another way but

same meaning. Hope so anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimfields33 (Reply #4)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:43 AM

7. They tried.

Letter wouldn’t engage. I’m mad bc Letter has been a bumbling fool before. This was too important to hand to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #7)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:44 AM

13. Damn. Thanks for keeping us informed on what is going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:43 AM

6. Why would there need to be a limiting principle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoonerPride (Reply #6)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:45 AM

14. Both conservative and liberal justices wanted one because

It helps keep one branch from overstepping the authority of another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #14)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:47 AM

20. Isn't that for SCOTUS to decide anyway?

We think you've gone too far here in this instance.

Asking one branch to unilaterally disarm and limit their oversight or power seems tenuous at best.

The executive branch argues it has limitless power.

Can't the legislative branch assert the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoonerPride (Reply #20)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:50 AM

22. They could but Letter didn't argue that

Sometimes bold arguments that are wrong can still work to your advantage. Letter just kept citing “legitimate legislative purpose.” If you bring a standard like that you’d better define it.

Really depressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:43 AM

8. Maybe I misheard, but Breyer didn't sound very happy with the

House counsel either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:43 AM

9. This needs to go the House's way or

It will cement the public view that the Supreme Court is partisan. The American people want those documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idziak4ever1234 (Reply #9)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:45 AM

16. The hope is Roberts recognizes this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:43 AM

10. Aren't there three cases? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:44 AM

11. A decision could come months later . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:46 AM

17. What is a limiting principle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #17)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:53 AM

24. Guideline that constrains a governmental power

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:46 AM

18. Where did they get that guy? Letter?

Very weak and unprepared. Unbelievable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #18)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:54 AM

27. Republicans have invested heavily in grooming shark lawyers

We have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:50 AM

21. Justice Ginsberg is tired, and sounding like it.

She's not showing her sharp mind right now. And trump's lawyers are kickin' ass with the help of the majority of the supremes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BComplex (Reply #21)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:52 AM

23. I still think Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch could go our way

But after today a heavy lift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #23)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:53 AM

26. I don't agree, but I hope you're right.

They are going to let trump walk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BComplex (Reply #26)

Tue May 12, 2020, 10:55 AM

28. Oh at this point I think your belief is more likely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #23)

Tue May 12, 2020, 11:53 AM

30. gorsuch could definitely go our way

he doesn't come across as blatantly partizan, just rather conservative

He also seems to be skeptical of presidential authority as a whole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 11:47 AM

29. Oral arguments don't matter much

most of the time. Doubt this is an exception. It will be a 5-4 decision either saying they won't get involved or giving some sort of narrow ruling favorable to Trump in this case.

I suspect the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 11:58 AM

31. Don't get you panties in a bunch

We lost it in 2016
This is the DU member formerly known as rusty fender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:00 PM

32. Would this hearing be different

If its found out that trump and his crew have been contacting Justices about this and others cases with bribes , or threats , or in any way influence their decision? Shouldn't any Justice have a obligation to recuse if there have been inappropriate contacts made? If that were to be exposed wouldn't that make this case results corrupted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:07 PM

33. We are listening to different hearings

Are you aware that there are 3 different cases and 6 different groups of litigator s

The state hearing is clearly going well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #33)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:11 PM

34. Yes. Did you see my other post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #34)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:19 PM

35. No but if you no longer agree with this OP you should delete it


Seems like you want to provide ongoing commentary, suggest you start a watch thread to give real time comments so people can follow the context and flow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #35)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:39 PM

38. But I don't disagree with this post

Oral arguments for the House’s suit were awful and I expect a negative decision on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:56 PM

36. Thank god for Carey Dunne.





Carey Dunne, NYDA’s General Counsel, did a spectacular job on the grand jury case in SCOTUS today. He was helpful to every justice, precise, candid, accurate, & provided the strongest possible defensible arguments for NY against Trump. I’d give him an A or A+, very rare for me.
This is the DU member formerly known as octoberlib.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #36)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:31 PM

37. Yeah that part of the case was brilliant.

Congressional subpoena power is where I was most concerned tho. So winning on that but losing here would be a bitter pill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread