Trump to Appeal Ruling on Vance Subpoena to Supreme Court

[brooklynite]

Source: Bloomberg

President Donald Trump’s lawyers told a judge they’ll ask the U.S. Supreme Court next week to block a subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney seeking his tax filings and other financial records.

Lawyers representing Trump and District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said in a joint letter Friday that Trump will ask for high court review by Thursday and both sides will file legal arguments by Nov. 25, setting up a possibility of finding out quickly whether the Supreme Court will hear the case.

If the court declines, that could clear the way for Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA LLP, to begin turning documents over to Vance’s office as early as next month.

The move comes at the end of a week that saw the federal appeals court in New York reject Trump’s argument that he has broad immunity from criminal investigation. The panel ruled 3-0 that Trump can’t block the grand jury subpoena.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-08/trump-to-appeal-ruling-on-d-a-s-tax-subpoena-to-supreme-court?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[maxsolomon]

1. Here we go!

Is the Constitution dead, or not? Has McConnell succeeded in killing it?

Tune in next month!

[Evolve Dammit]

2. I gotta have the Supremes. My Supremes. Mine. All mine. Only the best. MAGA!!!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope

the tell Trump's boys to go packing.

[Mc Mike]

4. You can tell how innocent he is, by how he covers everything up about all his actions.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Let's see what side the states' rights conservatives are on this time

[jberryhill]

11. Always a good setup

But they generally choose “hypocritical bastards”.

[BigmanPigman]

16. Correction: Hypocritical, greedy bastards!

My dad always described the GOP in those words. I miss my dad.

[meow2u3]

6. He's going to have to get past RBG first

and I doubt she'll take the case.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. is THAT the way this works?

Each SP Justice has a region for emergency appeals, and NY is RBG? And they can accept or decline, one justice, one and done?

[meow2u3]

12. AFAIK, it's known as a writ of certorari, or cert for short

Info straight from SCOTUS web site:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

The SCOTUS justice in charge of the appeals court circuit doesn't have to take the case; he or she can deny cert if the case has no merit.

https://ballotpedia.org/Certiorari

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Yes, thanks for the posting, that's what I thought I had read somewhere, but

it's still the SCOTUS ruling on a Manhattan subpoena

[Moosepoop]

25. It is not up to one justice. It takes 4 of the 9 voting to hear the case.

From your link: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

Writs of Certiorari

Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.

[regnaD kciN]

26. Well, we KNOW four will vote to take the case...

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are all solidly in Trump’s pocket. The only question is if, when the case is heard, Roberts joins them or not.

[cstanleytech]

8. Wait, isnt this the state seeking the records for state purposes? Hardly seems like an issue for the

Federal courts to be involved in then as its a state issue.

[jberryhill]

10. This is a federal suit seeking an injunction and brought by Trump

Trump brought a federal suit to stop enforcement of a state subpoena on the ground of a claimed federal right to immunity from process.

Whether state law enforcement actions violate the Constitution is always a matter for the federal courts.

[regnaD kciN]

27. It isn't...

Just like the Florida recount in 2000.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. He has beer bong Brett on his side

[Orrex]

13. I am desperate to wake one morning to the news that that stupid motherfucker is dead

[llmart]

15. +1000

[Kaiserguy]

20. Which one Idiot President or Beer Boy

[Orrex]

24. Well...

¿por qué no los dos?

[lastlib]

29. Yes.

eom

[llmart]

14. So what is he afraid the public will find out?

He certainly goes to great extremes to keep his financial records secret. Must be some real juicy criminal actions in those records.

[Pepsidog]

18. SCOTUS better not touch this case.

[Alwaysna]

19. Trump covers up his crap better than most cats!

[Roy Rolling]

21. He Can Ask

The Supreme Court will probably just ignore him. They aren’t even obligated to hear his case, it’s such a slam dunk.

But if they don’t ignore him, it’ll be more names added to the impeachment list of Trump, Pence, Barr, and more.

[DallasNE]

22. My Guess Is That SCOTUS Will

Decline to hear the case which will mean 8 years of Trump taxes will be released. And it means the Justices aren't on record for how they voted and isn't that the whole purpose?

[NoMoreRepugs]

23. tRUMP doesn't understand that if SCOTUS rules in his favor on the many appeals he might file with

them they become precedent and will apply to FUTURE DEMOCRATIC Presidents as well - something the Rethuglicans could never bear to happen.

[Snackshack]

28. If SCOTUS...

Decides to even hear the case the Constitution is over and America as we have known it is gone.

If the Supreme Court is truely still an unbiased arbiter of justice it will decline to hear the case period.