Jump to content

Want to hear the Supreme Court debate Trump’s tax returns?


Starkiller

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don’t believe in the integrity of the system anymore. 

November 4th.

4 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

In case you want to listen live on Tuesday at 10AM ET (or to a recorded version later) you can listen here:

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/03/848317039/listen-live-supreme-court-arguments-begin-monday

 

I know CNBC is also broadcasting it live so I’m sure other news outlets will also have it. CSPAN, too.

I could see it going a couple different ways, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Nixon was forced to give up documents to Congress in similar situations, but I could see an argument from the Supreme Court that this is not an investigation and has no real ties to legislation. I could see them voting down in giving the documents to Congress. 
 

The other side though where he is being investigated as a citizen by the SDNY is clear cut. He does not have a right to not be investigated, just like they ruled with Clinton. That one is much more straightforward. I can’t see any logical (logical being the key word) they vote that one down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I could see it going a couple different ways, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Nixon was forced to give up documents to Congress in similar situations, but I could see an argument from the Supreme Court that this is not an investigation and has no real ties to legislation. I could see them voting down in giving the documents to Congress. 
 

The other side though where he is being investigated as a citizen by the SDNY is clear cut. He does not have a right to not be investigated, just like they ruled with Clinton. That one is much more straightforward. I can’t see any logical (logical being the key word) they vote that one down. 


The law seems to be entirely on the Democrats' side. The question is whether the 5 Republican justices care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Starkiller said:


The law seems to be entirely on the Democrats' side. The question is whether the 5 Republican justices care.

Of course, but like I said it is much more clearly defined with precedent from Bill Clinton than it is with Nixon. 
 

The House Intelligence Committee is trying to say this would help them with oversight and to draft legislation. That’s an argument with some holes in it in my opinion. 
 

The SDNY is pretty airtight. They would have to bend themselves into a pretzel to overturn precedence on that front. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Titans279 said:


I don’t believe in the integrity of the system anymore. 

I don’t either, but this one is cut and dry. There is already clear cut precedence on the matter with Paula Jones and Bill Clinton. If they rule against the SDNY they would not only be overturning jurisprudence, but it would set a dangerous new understanding that not only is the president immune from criminal cases, but he is actually above the law and cannot even be investigated by authorities. The Supremacy Clause is what they’re trying to use, but it falls really flat here. The investigation in no way hampers the president in his capacity as head of state. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in the congressional case, they are not overstepping the bounds of their enumerated powers; it's not up to the judicial branch to judge the motives of the legislative, just whether or not their working under the guidelines; Roberts has said on more than one occasion the court should be very reluctant to undo the will of congress, and it should only be done due to extraordinary circumstances. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

I expect a vote down party lines 

Clarence Thomas voted in the affirmative in the Paula Jones case. Justices don’t like to overturn their own precedence without a ton of cause, which Trump’s lawyers don’t have. 
 

I would also be surprised if Roberts votes against it. He knows the precedent it would set. They would in the most literal sense be saying the president is a king (cannot be incriminated or investigated). 

Edited by IsntLifeFunny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...