Supreme Court ruling....

[Saratoga_Mike]

Trump v Vance

"JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, concurring in the judgment. The Court today unanimously concludes that a President does not possess absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena, but also unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the
subpoena as appropriate."

Given the case was remanded to the District Court, he will have one more shot to block the criminal subpoena, making arguments as an ordinary citizen, not under the absurd "absolute immunity"* argument, which is found nowhere in the Constitution. My bet is the District Court will not rule in his favor, but we'll see.

*Dem and Rep presidents since FDR have tried to grab/assert/wield far too much power. Today's ruling is a small victory for a non-imperial president, and that applies to Dems and Reps.

[PaceAdvantage]

They also said Congress can't see his financial records.

You left that part out?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

They also said Congress can't see his financial records.

You left that part out?

I hadn't seen that opinion yet (Trump v Vance was released first). I'll pull it up and post a similar excerpt.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Trump v Mazars et al

7-2 in Trump's favor....

"When Congress seeks information “needed for intelligent legislative action,” it “unquestionably” remains “the duty of all citizens to cooperate.” Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187 (emphasis added). Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered."

Like Trump v Vance, this case moves back to the lower courts. But unlike that case, I think the likely lower court ruling(s) remains more opaque.

[Tom]

1. Court kicked the can down the road....AGAIN

2. BOTH justices haven ow proven that they ARE unbiased men who represent the constitution, NOT Trump, as was accused by the left during hearings as to them not being fit to serve.

3. Interesting the spin from both sides......

4. Ever spray an ant hill with RAID and watch them all scurry about in every direction, totally in panic mode, confused, trying to hide.....or as we call it, Washington DC.

Trump was wrong in his argument, Congress was wrong in its purpose. Court was wrong in its lack of balls to say so.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

1. Court kicked the can down the road....AGAIN

I disagree and agree.

In the Vance case, the decision makes perfect sense. Trump* does not have absolute immunity as president. His position, as president, was the basis of his case. By making that argument, he did not forgo his due-process rights as an ordinary citizen. At this point, he should pursue his case (i.e., blocking the subpoena) as an ordinary citizen.

In the second case (Mazars et al), it sure looks like a punt on the surface, one that will ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court.

*any president

[Tom]

Point taken.

[PaceAdvantage]

"In the congressional case, they wiped away rulings in favor of House Democrats, ordering lower courts to more carefully consider concerns about the separation of powers.

The mixed rulings mean the American public is unlikely to learn about Trump’s financial records or tax information before November’s election."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/supr...x-records.html

[Saratoga_Mike]

Question - even if Congress had prevailed in its case, would his returns have been made public? I think the answer is no. I'm sure there would have been leaks, but not an outright release of the returns.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Question - even if Congress had prevailed in its case, would his returns have been made public? I think the answer is no. I'm sure there would have been leaks, but not an outright release of the returns.

If ANYONE has their hands on ANY of the dos, they WILL be made public. That is 100% They would have been on the news at NOON today.

The Dems make a habit of violating laws and leaking information - have been for years.

[JustRalph]

It’s a Pyrrhic victory. The minutiae of the taxes will tie this up in court way past the election. If he wins, nobody will care anymore. If he loses “nobody will care”

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

It’s a Pyrrhic victory. The minutiae of the taxes will tie this up in court way past the election. If he wins, nobody will care anymore. If he loses “nobody will care”

In the Mazars et al case, I agree, politically speaking.

In the Vance case, I could not disagree more. That's the case where Trump faces true legal jeopardy. He cares/will care.

[baconswitchfarm]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

In the Mazars et al case, I agree, politically speaking.

In the Vance case, I could not disagree more. That's the case where Trump faces true legal jeopardy. He cares/will care.

No former president will ever be in any legal jeopardy

[Tom]

Originally Posted by baconswitchfarm

No former president will ever be in any legal jeopardy

A serious problem.
NO one should EVER be above the law.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

A serious problem.
NO one should EVER be above the law.

Well said - DEM or REP.