THESE CASES ARE NOT OVER -- FURTHER PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED.

[onenote]

Yes Trump's absolute immunity argument was rejected. But both cases have been remanded. So more proceedings, and more delay.

From SCOTUSBLOG: The Court has vacated the decisions below in Mazars, and it holds that congressional subpoenas may be enforceable but that the courts below did not take account of all the possible separation of powers concerns. The case will this go on. So this issue is back in the hands of the DC and Second Circuits for now.

[soothsayer]

1. I guess it's better than a different ruling

[SoonerPride]

2. They intend to drag this shit out until the end of time

[uponit7771]

7. +1, which is the king in the US constitution on abuse of power; they courts can take their ever ...

... loving time ruling against a tyrant.

[Laelth]

3. Infuriating! Weak! Cowardly!

These issues have been FULLY litigated. It was time for the SCOTUS to stand up and rule. Instead, they punted. How many more briefs do they want to read? Seriously?



-Laelth

[onenote]

13. Are you suggesting RBG supported these decisions out of cowardice?

[Laelth]

15. I think she made what she considered to be a rational bargain.

I don’t know the specifics of that bargain, but I assume she is sane and that her heart is in the right place.

The left is in the minority on the Court. The Court could have overturned the rulings in both cases (one from the 2nd Court of Appeals and one from the DC Circuit). It could have been worse. Like everything else in this complicated and unwieldy republic, I assume that today’s rulings are the result of compromise.

But I still don’t like the idea that the executive can defy Congress, and I would have preferred it if the SCOTUS had said so, boldly and unequivocally. That’s not what I got today, and I don’t think that more briefs are going to change anything.

I doubt that RGB thinks these rulings are “right,” per se. These are the rulings she could get, and that will have to do.

-Laelth

[onenote]

17. RBG isn't shy. If she had more to say, she would have written a concurring opinion indicating

tbat she would have gone further.

[greenjar_01]

4. Categorical rejection of the immunity argument is more important than taxes before election day

[cbdo2007]

8. Yes, it is still a loss for Trump overall, just won't help us for the election.

[greenjar_01]

10. Trump's going to lose the election badly either way

[cbdo2007]

5. Yes, they are both getting kicked back down to the lower courts...

for clarification and more discussion, which is fair, though doesn't fit our timeline for the election.

On the congress case, it isn't "can congress see the President's tax records, yes or no..." it is "can congress see the tax records in x instance, yes or no"

[unblock]

6. right. nothing politically explosive in these matters will emerge before the election.

in principle, we won this case. but in practice, all donnie needed was a 4-month delay, and he got it.

[Laelth]

12. +1 Grrrr. Sigh. n/t

-Laelth

[ScratchCat]

9. I told anyone who would listed

That this is exactly how it would shake down - rule against Trump but kick it back to the lower courts so he can run out the clock on his Presidency(once he isn't POTUS, their reason for getting them expires).

I'm glad we have 7 Justices on record about no absolute immunity for the Executive, though. That's encouraging.

[Sgent]

16. The NY case

puts him in big time legal jeopardy. Assuming he loses the election we could see him do a perp walk if he did everyone thinks (deduct payments to Stormy Daniels on his state taxes).

[NoMoreRepugs]

11. A document leak from a true PATRIOT would be appreciated.

[Maraya1969]

14. I'll say. I'd hide them in my house if necessary.