Starkiller Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 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. IsntLifeFunny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted May 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 There is no way they’ll release them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 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 More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Titans279 said: There is no way they’ll release them. They will if the Supreme Court hasn’t outright lost its damn mind. ChemEngr79, and pamo9 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Titans279 Posted May 12, 2020 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: They will if the Supreme Court hasn’t outright lost its damn mind. I don’t believe in the integrity of the system anymore. Come on Titans, Stranger, ChemEngr79, and 9 others 11 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 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 More sharing options...
No1TitansFan Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 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 More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 I expect a vote down party lines Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 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 May 12, 2020 by IsntLifeFunny thor 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 Is anyone listening to this? Sekulow is getting eviscerated. ChemEngr79, and tgo 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted May 12, 2020 Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 Anyone know when a ruling on this is expected? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post scine09 Posted May 12, 2020 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, tgo said: Anyone know when a ruling on this is expected? November 4th. tgo, SpLeEnBeAnS, IsntLifeFunny, and 6 others 2 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.