Tue May 12, 2020, 03:04 PM
octoberlib (13,679 posts)
Supreme Court debate over Trump's financial records points to mixed outcome
The highly anticipated Supreme Court arguments over President Trump’s efforts to block disclosure of his income tax returns and private financial records suggested Tuesday the possibility of a mixed outcome.
Moreover, several justices suggested there might be more work for lower courts to do, which could delay any turnover of the documents being sought by congressional Democrats and Manhattan’s district attorney until after November’s election. The court’s conservative majority seemed far more critical of lawmakers’ demands, questioning whether approving the subpoenas issued by three congressional committees would open the door for a Congress ruled by one political party to make potentially harassing requests of a president from a different party. What Congress proposes as a limiting principle — that the request must be tied to potential legislation — is really “no protection at all, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. struck a similar chord.“Your test is not really much of a test. It’s not really a limit,” Roberts told Douglas N. Letter, general counsel to the House of Representatives, who said the key was that the request was tied to potential legislation. Letter had trouble coming up with an example of a legislative proposal beyond Congress’s reach, which one of Trump’s private lawyers pointed out. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/12/trump-taxes-scotus-hearing-live/ I'm not a lawyer so correct if I'm wrong. Letter has had months to work on this. Shouldn't he have been able to come up with something better? Too bad Carey Dunne isn't the House lawyer. He was awesome.
This is the DU member formerly known as octoberlib.
|
6 replies, 765 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
octoberlib | May 2020 | OP |
C_U_L8R | May 2020 | #1 | |
qazplm135 | May 2020 | #2 | |
empedocles | May 2020 | #4 | |
qazplm135 | May 2020 | #6 | |
mitch96 | May 2020 | #3 | |
UTUSN | May 2020 | #5 |
Response to octoberlib (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 03:08 PM
C_U_L8R (39,982 posts)
1. There's no limit to Trump's crimes... why should there be a limit on investigations.
This whole argument seems arbitrary IMO.
Do police have quotas on how many powerful people they can arrest? |
Response to octoberlib (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 03:10 PM
qazplm135 (5,420 posts)
2. they will find a way to send back down
which will move it past the election, which will render it moot assuming Trump loses.
|
Response to qazplm135 (Reply #2)
Tue May 12, 2020, 03:36 PM
empedocles (11,905 posts)
4. Questions asked by the Justices in oral arguments not as telling as
some would think.
In Conference is where decisions will be made. |
Response to empedocles (Reply #4)
Tue May 12, 2020, 03:42 PM
qazplm135 (5,420 posts)
6. Didn't watch oral argument
just strikes me as the most likely path that avoids hurting Trump but saves it for future Dem Presidents.
Straddles the line without directly helping Trump. |
Response to octoberlib (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 03:29 PM
mitch96 (7,547 posts)
3. "render it moot assuming Trump loses."
I think if anything gets released the State of NY will use it to convict him of state crimes..
YMMV m |
Response to octoberlib (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 03:41 PM
UTUSN (58,108 posts)