Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Polybius

(15,239 posts)
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:08 PM Nov 2019

Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns t

Source: CNBC

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a ruling that requires President Donald Trump’s longtime accounting firm to turn over his tax returns to Congress.

The temporary stay order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.

The move was expected and does not provide new information about how the justices may ultimately vote on the matter. It generally requires five votes to grant a stay, though in some cases one justice may do so pending review by the full court.

Earlier in the day, attorneys for House Democrats said in a letter they would not oppose a temporary delay in enforcing the subpoena to allow the court time to consider arguments on both sides. The committee said in the letter that it would provide its response on Friday.

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

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns t (Original Post) Polybius Nov 2019 OP
As expected, CJ Roberts issues temporary stay in Trump v. Mazars, meaning accounting firm doesn't... mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #1
This isn't unexpected. djg21 Nov 2019 #9
Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #11
It means the SC will review the case, right? California_Republic Nov 2019 #12
No. djg21 Nov 2019 #14
They have a Twitter account too, as does Amy Howe, one of their prolific writers. mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #22
No, it means that they are getting ready to consider whether to review it. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #16
Oh boy DENVERPOPS Nov 2019 #30
Thanks for the heads up! Dennis Donovan Nov 2019 #15
I knew it his f----g court is his insurance policy. nt doc03 Nov 2019 #2
+1 ancianita Nov 2019 #17
Both sides indicated they were fine with exactly this order. It says nothing about onenote Nov 2019 #21
Justices Gorsuck and Boof are doing their jobs. lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #33
Yes, along with all the other Justices. This is a routine administrative order The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #34
The talking heads I heard said the SCOTUS doc03 Nov 2019 #41
They shouldn't (but then, I didn't think they should or would hear Bush v. Gore, either). The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #42
Before the predictable hissy-fit about the evil Supreme Court is posted The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #3
Thx for weighing in!! Thekaspervote Nov 2019 #6
+1 Mike 03 Nov 2019 #8
Thanks. I was just about to say something similar (sans the tweet). ET Awful Nov 2019 #18
Too late. Some already are saying this shows the court is intent on saving Trump onenote Nov 2019 #23
Lots of knee-jerking is performed by folks who don't know how the process works, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #28
And Justice Roberts has been sooooooo concerned about the politicization of the court... Raster Nov 2019 #4
See above. It's an administrative stay giving the lawyers time to file briefs. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #7
I see this and changed my post. Raster Nov 2019 #25
Better yet, that they don't take the case at all. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #26
Yes, that would be optimum, allowing the lower courts judgement to stand. Raster Nov 2019 #27
Did I just hear Pete Williams cilla4progress Nov 2019 #5
I haven't read it yet, but I believe the committee agreed to a 10 day stay beginning the 20th herding cats Nov 2019 #10
The Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was scheduled to take affect this Wednesday ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #20
Trump's lawyers already have filed onenote Nov 2019 #24
I agree, that's why I wrote ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #36
Congressional oversight is on the chopping block. Mz Pip Nov 2019 #13
Don't jump to conclusions. The court hasn't even agreed to hear the case yet. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #19
It IS on the chopping block ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #39
Not jumping to conclusions. Mz Pip Nov 2019 #40
I think they may refuse to hear it just to preserve the SC as seemingly impartial. truthisfreedom Nov 2019 #29
I hope so. dewsgirl Nov 2019 #31
"consider arguments" Maxheader Nov 2019 #32
This stay was supported by the House committee onenote Nov 2019 #35
I wonder if the court will interfere with the House which would be a violation of the Constitution. cstanleytech Nov 2019 #37
So do you agree with Judge Rao onenote Nov 2019 #43
Nope I don't agree as the court is supposed to be one of the checks and cstanleytech Nov 2019 #44
This is not a big deal Gothmog Nov 2019 #38

mahatmakanejeeves

(56,897 posts)
1. As expected, CJ Roberts issues temporary stay in Trump v. Mazars, meaning accounting firm doesn't...
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:09 PM
Nov 2019
As expected, CJ Roberts issues temporary stay in Trump v. Mazars, meaning accounting firm doesn't have to turn over financial records right away. House committee seeking those records had acquiesced earlier today


 

djg21

(1,803 posts)
9. This isn't unexpected.
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:15 PM
Nov 2019

It’s a stay intended to preserve the status quo ante and not allow the case to be rendered academic while it is being considered by the Court. It doesn’t mean anything, and nothing should be read into it. The Court still may deny certiorari and leave the decision of the Court of Appeals in tact.

 

djg21

(1,803 posts)
14. No.
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:19 PM
Nov 2019

The Court will conference and determine whether to grant or deny certiorari. All SCOTUS-related matters can be followed at https://www.scotusblog.com. This is a really informative blog with great analysis.

On edit: here is a link to the SCOTUSBlog coverage: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/trump-returns-to-supreme-court-asks-justices-to-intervene-in-dispute-over-financial-records/

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
16. No, it means that they are getting ready to consider whether to review it.
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:20 PM
Nov 2019

They have not granted certiorari. The parties have to file documents in favor of and opposing review.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
34. Yes, along with all the other Justices. This is a routine administrative order
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:38 PM
Nov 2019

that gives the lawyers time to file their paperwork related to the cert. petition that would be done in any case, no matter who the parties were. It doesn't mean anything except that the court is following its own rules and the requests of both parties.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
42. They shouldn't (but then, I didn't think they should or would hear Bush v. Gore, either).
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 07:20 PM
Nov 2019

The cases they usually accept for review are cases in which there are inconsistent decisions in the lower courts, which isn't the situation here. The lower courts have all been pretty emphatic in holding that presidents aren't immune from investigation, and those decisions have been based on tons of precedent. I don't know how they'd get past the Clinton deposition case or especially the Nixon tapes case.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
3. Before the predictable hissy-fit about the evil Supreme Court is posted
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:11 PM
Nov 2019

by people who don't have a clue about the process, this is an administrative stay that means nothing except that it gives the lawyers on both sides time to prepare and file their paperwork.


ET Awful

(24,753 posts)
18. Thanks. I was just about to say something similar (sans the tweet).
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:22 PM
Nov 2019

The USSC will put an administrative hold on any case submitted to it to allow both sides to present their filings. This is prior to them making a decision as to whether to hear the case or not. From a strictly legal perspective (putting aside personal opinions) You can't let the lower court decision stand and force the release of the docs (or award of monetary damages or enforcement of a statute/law, etc.) while the appeals process is ongoing, otherwise you risk irreparable harm to one party or the other.

The process requires the administrative hold, then the review of filings from both parties, then the decision as to whether to take the case. If they decline to take the case, the lower court decision stands. If they accept the case, further hearings take place and the injunction remains in place until the final decision.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
23. Too late. Some already are saying this shows the court is intent on saving Trump
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:28 PM
Nov 2019

They don't understand the order or the circumstances under which it was granted and apparently don't care that they don't.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
28. Lots of knee-jerking is performed by folks who don't know how the process works,
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:33 PM
Nov 2019

which is certainly forgivable, and who don't bother to find out how it works before posting an ill-informed rant, which isn't.

Raster

(20,996 posts)
4. And Justice Roberts has been sooooooo concerned about the politicization of the court...
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:13 PM
Nov 2019

... I hope I am wrong and that in the end, the SCOTUS sides with the House.

herding cats

(19,549 posts)
10. I haven't read it yet, but I believe the committee agreed to a 10 day stay beginning the 20th
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:16 PM
Nov 2019

Which I'm assuming is what the SC has granted.

aggiesal

(8,864 posts)
20. The Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was scheduled to take affect this Wednesday ...
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:24 PM
Nov 2019

so Pendejo45's lawyers had until Wed. to file arguments with the SC.
The house had agreed to this "Stay" and will file their arguments by Friday.

aggiesal

(8,864 posts)
36. I agree, that's why I wrote ...
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 04:05 PM
Nov 2019

"... Pendejo45's lawyers had until Wed. ..."

And that the House has already given a heads-up to the SC about
filing this Friday.

Mz Pip

(27,404 posts)
13. Congressional oversight is on the chopping block.
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:18 PM
Nov 2019

Does not Congress have the power to investigate the Executive Branch? Conservatives want to neuter Congressional power. If this goes in Trump’s favor we can just kiss good bye that we have 3 co equal branches of government.

So any president from here on out will be able to declare any investigation a witch hunt and refuse to comply and get away with it.

ArizonaLib

(1,242 posts)
39. It IS on the chopping block
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 05:08 PM
Nov 2019

The majority on this court has already showed its colors. People have concern to be worried about this case/filing. Anyone who thinks ideologically based votes on the supreme court don't affect the whole country are dreaming.

Mz Pip

(27,404 posts)
40. Not jumping to conclusions.
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 05:20 PM
Nov 2019

This is what the Trump Administration wants, a President who cannot be checked by Congress.

We’ll see what SCOTUS does, but I am not optimistic.

Maxheader

(4,366 posts)
32. "consider arguments"
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:07 PM
Nov 2019

Yeah you bastard supreme right wingers..we don't need anymore time to add to the list of stumpys criminal background..And with your "stellar" group of republicon appointees...crooks all....you understand why
cheetox is stalling for time...just like you did during confirmation hearings..

onenote

(42,383 posts)
35. This stay was supported by the House committee
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 03:53 PM
Nov 2019

so that they would have an opportunity to respond to Trump's arguments.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Chill.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
43. So do you agree with Judge Rao
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 10:59 PM
Nov 2019

who argued today that the courts should not get involved in the case where the Judiciary Committee is trying to get Mueller's grand jury records?

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
44. Nope I don't agree as the court is supposed to be one of the checks and
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 11:27 PM
Nov 2019

if they do their job they should support the House in doing it's Constitutional duty.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court temporarily...