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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

onenote

(46,080 posts)

14. Yes, necessarily.

Reply to ancianita (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 12:24 PM

Nov 2019

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

House panel agrees to temporary stay of Trump subpoena to allow Supreme Court to weigh in on financi [View all] mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 OP

99% sure SC will not take it up, beachbumbob Nov 2019 #1

If they take it up Miguelito Loveless Nov 2019 #5

I'm almost equally certain they will grant cert. onenote Nov 2019 #10

99% sure SCROTUS will act to protect Trump. lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #11

Roberts still is the 5th vote. beachbumbob Nov 2019 #31

Yeah that's pretty depressing too. lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #32

Not really. Roberts has a sense of legacy, history and precedence. beachbumbob Nov 2019 #33

What's Trump's Latest Excuse For Not Releasing?....... global1 Nov 2019 #2

Translation? KPN Nov 2019 #3

The House is "allowing" input from SCOTUS, but SCOTUS doesn't get the last word. The ancianita Nov 2019 #4

That simply is not true. onenote Nov 2019 #6

Not necessarily in this particular impeachment context. ancianita Nov 2019 #13

Yes, necessarily. onenote Nov 2019 #14

The USSC would be encroaching on the House's oversight duty, as described in the Constitution, Eyeball_Kid Nov 2019 #17

They just did something: Polybius Nov 2019 #21

You are simply wrong. onenote Nov 2019 #22

First, they're deciding whether or not to even hear the appeal, which is for immunity from ancianita Nov 2019 #23

This just in: Polybius Nov 2019 #20

Welp, that right there tells you the political bias of the Republican Five on the USSC. A disgusting ancianita Nov 2019 #24

No, it does not. herding cats Nov 2019 #25

Okay. I understand now. Thanks. ancianita Nov 2019 #27

I just didn't want you to worry unnecessarily. herding cats Nov 2019 #30

It does nothing of the sort onenote Nov 2019 #26

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'll shut up until the next decision. ancianita Nov 2019 #29

What is there to weigh? The House is doing its job as a check on the power of the President as laid cstanleytech Nov 2019 #7

Here is a link to the letter onenote Nov 2019 #8

Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #9

This thread might help explain the process: mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #12

Links to Robert Barnes, of the Washington Post; and to SCOTUSblog's Twitter accounts: mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #15

If the Supremes side with tRump on this one, Bayard Nov 2019 #16

10 days. Hmm, that would make a lovely Thanksgiving gift. mpcamb Nov 2019 #18

Dems are palying 3D chess bluescribbler Nov 2019 #19

I'm not worried...we'll get them... VarryOn Nov 2019 #28

For this thread Gothmog Nov 2019 #34

Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #35

Question here bluestarone Nov 2019 #36