House panel agrees to temporary stay of Trump subpoena to allow Supreme Court to weigh in on financi

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: The Hill

House panel agrees to temporary stay of Trump subpoena to allow Supreme Court to weigh in on financial records
BY HARPER NEIDIG - 11/18/19 11:13 AM EST

The House Oversight Committee told the Supreme Court on Monday that it would not oppose President Trump's request for an administrative stay of an appeals court ruling granting House Democrats access to his financial records.

The panel said in a letter to the high court that it would not oppose a 10-day administrative stay while the justices decide whether to take up Trump's appeal. The committee also said it would file a response to Trump's motion by Friday.


Trump's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court last week to hear their case after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the House committee could subpoena the president's accounting firm for eight years of financial records.

Trump's legal team had filed for an emergency stay because the appellate court's ruling was set to go into effect on Wednesday.
....

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/470905-house-panel-agrees-to-temporary-stay-of-trump-subpoena-to-allow

---

JUST IN: House Oversight Committee agrees to temporary stay of Trump subpoena to allow Supreme Court to weigh in on financial records http://hill.cm/Iix88yr

Link to tweet

[beachbumbob]

1. 99% sure SC will not take it up,

Power of congress to investigate is in the Constitution.

[Miguelito Loveless]

5. If they take it up

the fix is in.

[onenote]

10. I'm almost equally certain they will grant cert.

Three Republican appointed judges (two Trump appointees and one GHWBush appointee) already have indicated that they lean in Trump's direction on the merits. That, to me, is a pretty strong indicator that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas will vote to grant cert, and that's all it takes. And while it takes five votes to stay the appeals court ruling while the case is pending before the Supreme Court, I think that Roberts will support such a stay if there are four votes to grant cert.

But we'll know soon enough.

[lagomorph777]

11. 99% sure SCROTUS will act to protect Trump.

Justices Gorsuck and Boof were installed for that purpose.

[beachbumbob]

31. Roberts still is the 5th vote.

[lagomorph777]

32. Yeah that's pretty depressing too.

[beachbumbob]

33. Not really. Roberts has a sense of legacy, history and precedence.

Though he is conservative, he has some sense of justice

[global1]

2. What's Trump's Latest Excuse For Not Releasing?.......

Is he still being audited? (sarcasm)

[KPN]

3. Translation?

[ancianita]

4. The House is "allowing" input from SCOTUS, but SCOTUS doesn't get the last word. The

People's House does, because this situation affects the whole country.

(This looks to me like a reminder to SCOTUS to not try what it has in the past.As should have happened in the Bush v. Gore decision, when politicos Sandra Day O'Connor and Roberts hijacked the presidential election from Florida's supreme court.)

To me, the whole problem is how Republican-biased USSC is. I don't want ANY unelected judges "taking up" anything about an elected president. Period. They've screwed up our country enough by misusing their power in the past. If the House wants to use his tax records, USSC will choose in his favor. But the House is reminding the USSC of its unconstitutional overreach in the past.

[onenote]

6. That simply is not true.

The Supreme Court will have the last word.

[ancianita]

13. Not necessarily in this particular impeachment context.

[onenote]

14. Yes, necessarily.

If the Supreme Court rules that the subpoena is invalid, that's the law of the land. Period.

[Eyeball_Kid]

17. The USSC would be encroaching on the House's oversight duty, as described in the Constitution,

if they ruled either way on the subpoena. They can't remain co-equal while even addressing a subpoena. The House has legal authority as stated in the Constitution, and THAT'S the law of the land. Consideration of the validity of this subpoena extends to the contention of ALL Congressional subpoenas, which would substantially diminish Congressional oversight duties. This is not a good idea.

[Polybius]

21. They just did something:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/supreme-court-temporarily-halts-court-order-requiring-accountants-to-turn-over-trumps-tax-returns-to-congress.html

[onenote]

22. You are simply wrong.

And the House lawyers arguing this case wisely aren't making that argument.

Go read US v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974).

"In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others. The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Court, however, have unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison, supra at 177."

And Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962):

"Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."

And Powell v. McCormack, 395 US 486 (1969):

Our system of government "requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch."

[ancianita]

23. First, they're deciding whether or not to even hear the appeal, which is for immunity from

third parties' documents submission, and that the interests of a president override the interests of a state's law, which its legislature and AG have already established.

Second, cite any legal precedents.

Two earlier cases, United States v. Nixon in 1974 and Clinton v. Jones in 1997, were ruling against the sitting presidents.

This time, there are also congressional subpoenas, not just this state one, on the line. To rule subpoenas invalid based on his lawyers' arguments is to give the Second Branch total immunity from not just criminal investigation and cripples the First Branch's right to oversight and impeachment.

[Polybius]

20. This just in:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/supreme-court-temporarily-halts-court-order-requiring-accountants-to-turn-over-trumps-tax-returns-to-congress.html

[ancianita]

24. Welp, that right there tells you the political bias of the Republican Five on the USSC. A disgusting

override of the country's interests.

This corporate five's rubberstamping of proven business interests of this president are the end of this nation's democratic government.

I can't wait to read the dissenting arguments.

[herding cats]

25. No, it does not.

This is simply the SC granting the 10 day stay agreed to in the OP. It is an expected part of the legal process and only a brief stay for both sides to prepare their arguments as to if it should be taken up by the SCOTUS, or not.

[ancianita]

27. Okay. I understand now. Thanks.

[herding cats]

30. I just didn't want you to worry unnecessarily.

We're all understandably anxious as to this outcome, but this isn't a telling moment in the process but rather a normal step.

[onenote]

26. It does nothing of the sort

Both parties asked for the same thing: a temporary stay of the appeals court mandate until the House had a chance to respond to Trump's request for a longer stay.

And that's exactly what Justice Roberts, acting as the justice assigned to the DC Circuit, granted. It is as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning.

Link to the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111819zr_6537.pdf

[ancianita]

29. Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'll shut up until the next decision.

I'm not trusting this court, obviously, and am jumping ahead to dread the outcome.

Apologies for creating more noise than signal.

[cstanleytech]

7. What is there to weigh? The House is doing its job as a check on the power of the President as laid

out in the Constitution which the Republicans so love to waive around when it comes to things like the 2nd Amendment.

[onenote]

8. Here is a link to the letter

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19A545/122673/20191118101546002_Comm.%20Oversight%20Letter%20re%20Mazars%2019A545.pdf

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. Thanks. NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. This thread might help explain the process:

Re: those subpoenas for Trump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in 36 hours

NotOutlandishHat Retweeted

1. With two of the subpoenas for @realDonaldTrump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in the next 36 hours, I wanted to put together a detailed #thread walking through where we are and what happens next.

Apologies in advance, but this is going to get nerdy.

Link to tweet

.
.
.

12. But as I've documented in a brand-new @HarvLRev essay, the Trump administration has asked for _far_ more stays from #SCOTUS than its predecessors (the next request will be the 22nd in less than three years)—and has received relief far more often:

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/123-163_Online.pdf …

Link to tweet

13. And an application for a stay tends to be resolved much faster than a cert. petition. So even though we may not know until January whether the Court will take the Vance case, we may know by Thanksgiving whether there are five votes to freeze the status quo for the time being.

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. Links to Robert Barnes, of the Washington Post; and to SCOTUSblog's Twitter accounts:

House suggest #scotus give Trump short stay in financial records case while it prepares response

Link to tweet

SCOTUSblog Retweeted

Full letter is available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19A545/122673/20191118101546002_Comm.%20Oversight%20Letter%20re%20Mazars%2019A545.pdf …

Link to tweet

[Bayard]

16. If the Supremes side with tRump on this one,

You might as well throw the rest of the Constitution out with it.

[mpcamb]

18. 10 days. Hmm, that would make a lovely Thanksgiving gift.

[bluescribbler]

19. Dems are palying 3D chess

Drumpf is playing tic-tac-toe.

[VarryOn]

28. I'm not worried...we'll get them...

And we’ll have yet another reason for impeachment. Three years of impeachment effort is about to pay off!!!

[Gothmog]

34. For this thread

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

35. Thanks. NT

[bluestarone]

36. Question here

If the SC decides for tRUMP on this one, The NY state one is still active right?