Sign in to follow this  
Shortforbob

Testing the Supreme court's integrity

Recommended Posts

More woe for Trump or ultimate victory?

Trump's conduct going under the microscope. starting testing ..and more testing this month and onward.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-supreme-court-confronts-trumps-challenge-to-the-separation-of-powers

During his confirmation hearing, in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh insisted that “one of the greatest moments in American judicial history” was the case of United States v. Nixon, in 1974. In a unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, one of President Richard Nixon’s appointees, the Supreme Court rejected Nixon’s claim of absolute executive privilege, ordering him to comply with a judicial subpoena to turn over the White House tapes that would lead to his resignation. In an article from 2016, Kavanaugh wrote, admiringly, that the Justices “stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law.”

In the coming months, several cases will test the Court’s strength in this regard. In each of these cases, President Donald Trump is attempting to block the examination of his conduct, by claiming that the chief executive is immune from various forms of investigation. At stake in these cases is the public’s ability to know about, and seek accountability for, misconduct.

But, more important, they represent a gut check for our system of separation of powers. As the Supreme Court hears these cases, beginning this month and extending through the next term, it will enter what may prove to be among its greatest moments or its worst.

 

The most important of the crop is Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, about whether a court can force the President’s close aides to obey congressional subpoenas, against the President’s orders.

More than a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the former White House counsel Don McGahn, ordering him to testify about Trump’s possible obstruction of justice, corruption, and abuse of power. Trump directed McGahn to disobey the subpoena, and McGahn did not appear before Congress. (Trump’s former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and his former national-security adviser John Bolton disregarded similar subpoenas, also on Trump’s orders.) Last August, the Judiciary Committee asked a district court to compel McGahn to appear. The Trump Administration claimed, in response, that the constitutional power of the President entails “absolute immunity” for his close aides. A district court rejected that sweeping claim, stating bluntly that “presidents are not kings.” But, in February, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vindicated Trump by holding that courts don’t have the constitutional power to address Congress’s complaint, even if flouting congressional orders is unlawful. That means that Congress must negotiate with the President to get executive officials to appear or take enforcement into its own hands—although it’s been more than a century since Congress directed its sergeant at arms to jail people in the Capitol for contempt (and the Administration claims that Congress lacks that power as well). This week, the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case, and appeared to favor Congress’s arguments—just as the Administration blocked Anthony Fauci from testifying, this coming Wednesday, in a House investigation on the White House’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Whatever the result of the case, it is sure to head to the Supreme Court.

In addition to fighting the McGahn subpoena, Trump is pressing lawsuits challenging legislative and judicial subpoenas of his financial and business records, stretching back to 2010. Three of those cases will be argued before the Supreme Court by teleconference, on May 12th, after arguments were postponed earlier this spring because of covid-19.

Two of them, Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, involve House subpoenas for Trump’s financial information, which the committees on Oversight, Financial Services, and Intelligence issued to his accounting firm, Mazars, and to Deutsche Bank and Capital One in April, 2019. The committees claim that the subpoenas are meant to inform investigations into how to legislate in a range of areas, including government ethics, financial disclosures, money laundering, and foreign influence on elections.

Trump claims that Congress’s true purpose with these subpoenas is to determine whether he committed criminal wrongdoing, and that Congress is really engaged in law enforcement, which is an executive function rather than a legislative one. Two appeals courts, and two district courts before them, correctly decided against Trump, because seeking information in investigations, in order to aid in consideration of legislation or impeachment, has long been part of the role of Congress.

These cases are likely less controversial for judges than the McGahn case, because the subpoenas were directed to private parties rather than an executive official, so the dispute presents less of a direct conflict between Congress and the President.

 

Also on May 12th, the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Vance, Trump’s challenge to a similar subpoena, from a grand jury in the investigation of his business dealings by the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. As part of Vance’s investigation, which targets Trump for possible criminal indictment, his office demanded Trump’s financial records, including his personal tax returns, from Mazars.

The Justice Department’s long-standing position is that the President cannot be federally indicted while in office, but, as a state prosecutor, Vance is considering indicting Trump under New York criminal law, during or after his Presidency. Trump claims that the constitutional power of the chief executive, combined with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land,” means that no prosecutors may target him while he is President, even for investigation. Trump is also claiming that a criminal prosecution would distract him from doing his job, an argument that Bill Clinton made to the Supreme Court, in 1997, in an effort to have Paula Jones’s civil sexual-harassment lawsuit halted during his Presidency.

There’s certainly something to the idea that it’s very difficult for anyone, let alone a President, to perform his or her job while facing prosecution or even a civil suit—but the Supreme Court unanimously decided against Clinton, saying that, while lawsuits over conduct from before a Presidency may distract from executive duties, they are not barred as a matter of constitutional separation of powers.

Criminal prosecutions may be different. But, while concerns about subjecting a sitting President to criminal indictment seem justified, they are far less persuasive when it comes to merely conducting an investigation, and especially with regard to a subpoena to a third party, which doesn’t require anything of the President.

In his court fights, Trump is repeating a refrain that the only constitutional means to hold a President accountable for wrongdoing is impeachment. But, of course, we know that Trump was able to hamstring his impeachment last year by directing disobedience of congressional orders, making House Democrats vulnerable to criticism that they proceeded without key evidence. (The House even attempted to rebuke Trump’s defiance by tacking on “obstruction of Congress” as an impeachment article.) Then Trump’s lawyers said during the Senate trial that the House hadn’t tried hard enough to pursue judicial enforcement of subpoenas for the missing evidence. Trump went on to claim in court, in a bald Catch-22, that courts cannot enforce subpoenas for evidence of his wrongdoing because the proper avenue for Presidential accountability is . . . impeachment.

Now the separation of powers is in danger of being reduced to a nauseating merry-go-round, in which neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can check the President, because each says that the other should do it. Solving this dilemma is now thrust on the Court, which will decide Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank together by this summer, and Trump v. Vance in the same time frame, and must also be thinking about the likelihood that it will hear the McGahn case next term.

 
 

In one or more of the instances of Presidential resistance to legal orders, the Court could find that Trump has overestimated his power. Or it could find, to the contrary, that Congress, or Vance, cannot compel executive-branch officials—or private parties—to provide information about the President.

While the Vance case will be the easiest for the Justices to decide against Trump, it could well be accompanied by a win for Trump in the cases involving congressional subpoenas. In those cases, the Court may use the off-ramp that the D.C. Circuit panel took in the McGahn case, saying that the Constitution does not allow a court to decide. Just two weeks before oral arguments, the Supreme Court hinted at the attractiveness of this last option by asking the parties and the Justice Department for supplemental briefs about the Court’s authority to adjudicate the cases. This direction could be particularly appealing to the conservative majority, which may be loath to decide against the President but also doesn’t wish to endorse Trump’s disobedience of legal orders.

Even that option, though, would create the unfortunate appearance of acquiescing to a President who has regularly denigrated the authority of both Congress and the judicial system, particularly if the decisions were to split, with a familiar 5–4 conservative majority.

Republicans in Congress have put the Court in a particularly difficult position. President Nixon threatened in advance to disregard a Supreme Court order to hand over the White House tapes. In the end, he complied, because it was clear that, if he didn’t, his impeachment was certain; at that time, Republicans in Congress would not have tolerated disobedience of the Court. But in this hyperpartisan moment, congressional Republicans and their constituents might not condemn Trump’s obstruction of a court order, let alone allow it to become the basis for another impeachment or other political sanction. It’s possible that, in anticipation of that, some Justices might even feel that siding with this President, or not deciding at all, is a better way of protecting the Court’s authority than standing up to him.

During this Presidency, Chief Justice John Roberts has resisted the pervasive narrative of judicial partisanship, famously rebuking Trump’s swipes at judicial independence, by insisting, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” but rather “judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

The Chief Justice may want to find a nonpartisan compromise—but, in these cases, one does not exist. That would counsel in favor of the Court standing up to the other branches and enforcing the separation of powers in a merits decision, much as it did in the Nixon case.

For those at the top of the judicial branch, there is a motivation that is greater than partisanship: the desire to retain the perception of legitimacy that is most crucial to maintenance of its power. That legitimacy now hangs on the Court’s ability to demonstrate that neither the President nor any party is supreme over it.

 
 
 
Jeannie Suk Gersen is a contributing writer to The New Yorker and a professor at Harvard Law School.
**paragraphing mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of having firm principles, if they aren't malleable?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit's getting real for the SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These decisions will decide the fate of our country, more than any other in recent memory.  Decided incorrectly and the executive branch will have NO leash on what they can do. And a couple hundred years of teaching separation of powers will be thrown out the window.  This is more important than the hot button issues like abortion and gun control.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ishmael said:

What's the point of having firm principles, if they aren't malleable?

stop it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grrr... said:

These decisions will decide the fate of our country, more than any other in recent memory.  Decided incorrectly and the executive branch will have NO leash on what they can do. And a couple hundred years of teaching separation of powers will be thrown out the window.  This is more important than the hot button issues like abortion and gun control.

Ironically, your best hope there is that those people were largely selected because they were strict constructionists.

If that is the case they are unlikely to be sympathetic to the view of the Constitution held by trash like Moscow Mitch or Eye of Newt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SCOTUS has already taken a stand . . 

by slow-walking these cases ( esp. McGhan), they have let 

the Drumph just about run out the clock. 

I don't think any of the Reich-Wing justices give a rat's ass 

about the rule of law. 

The New Yorker got this one very wrong . . 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/courts-slow-trump-decisions-deliberate.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The SCOTUS has already taken a stand . . 

by slow-walking these cases ( esp. McGhan), they have let 

the Drumph just about run out the clock. 

Do you mean the case about which the topic post said this?

On 5/3/2020 at 12:35 AM, Shortforbob said:

This week, the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case

If it's still in the appeals court, the Supreme Court hasn't yet been asked to hear it so have had no opportunity to "slow walk" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steganographic Tom said:

If it's still in the appeals court, the Supreme Court hasn't yet been asked to hear it so have had no opportunity to "slow walk" it.

Complete and total bull-pucky  . . 

read the Slate article, it is short & concise, and get back to us . . 

It is actually not just a slow-walk; more like a glacial walk!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

ead the Slate article

I did, and it doesn't support your statement about SCOTUS "slow walking" the case either.

Who asked the Supreme Court to hear McGhan and when did it happen? That article is from January and points out that courts can act quickly but someone does have to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steganographic Tom said:

I did, and it doesn't support your statement about SCOTUS "slow walking" the case either.

Who asked the Supreme Court to hear McGhan and when did it happen? That article is from January and points out that courts can act quickly but someone does have to ask.

Oh ye of bad faith - the article totally supports the Slow Walk thesis. 

Perhaps some others of ya might read it and comment? 

One point from the article: Why was it that the SCOTUS could act with such rapid dispatch in the case

of Bush Vs. Gore (days, not even weeks) - but now all that takes a year or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

One point from the article: Why was it that the SCOTUS could act with such rapid dispatch in the case

of Bush Vs. Gore (days, not even weeks) - but now all that takes a year or more.

So your takeaway from that article - which had a few examples from the last 80 years or so - Is that because they moved fast a few times, SCOTUS should move that fast all the time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So your takeaway from that article - which had a few examples from the last 80 years or so - Is that because they moved fast a few times, SCOTUS should move that fast all the time?

No, but when it is a vital matter of national import, they should not put their finger on the scales. 

Pretty obvious, I would think. 

If Trump gets away with it, you can kiss your separation of powers goodbye. 

And BTW, as Trump has shown, we has no more respect for the judicial Branch than he does for the Legislative Branch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So your takeaway from that article -

And BTW Mr. Reichista, it is by no means just "that article". 

There are many others that make that same obvious point. 

Google is your friend. (Note to self: gotta switch to Bing) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 11:37 PM, Ishmael said:

What's the point of having firm principles, if they aren't malleable?

Sincerity? Yeah, I can fake that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hrothgar said:

Hroth

Your usual Bull- Pucky 

this is qualitatively different, and as a semi-sentient being, you well know it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Google is your friend.

Maybe it should be yours too, or perhaps Dogpile.

It might help to answer my question of who asked for Supreme Court intervention in the case you say they're slow walking. If there is an answer, that is.

I see this one going the same way as the last time an Aussie busybody figured he knew everything about our Supreme Court and their partisan nature. After the decision came down 7-2, with Gorsuch and Ginsburg dissenting, all the potential for scoring partisan points went away, taking all interest in the subject with it for the partisan hacks who inhabit this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

I see this one going the same way as the last time an Aussie busybody figured he knew everything about our Supreme Court and their partisan nature. 

We have been over this before, and several of us wiped up the floor with you. 

It's not just "partisan" - it is about nearly always taking the side of big money . .  

Just one good example out of hundreds - the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was aimed at reining in big money concentration . . 

But how was it first applied? Hint - Gene Debs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And BTW Mr. Reichista, it is by no means just "that article". 

There are many others that make that same obvious point. 

Google is your friend. (Note to self: gotta switch to Bing) 

"same obvious point". Yeah, very rarely does the SCOTUS do anything quickly. 

Yet here you are, knowing history is against you, continuing to whine about it. "Waahh, my pet case hasn't been appealed to SCOTUS yet, WHY HASN'T SCOTUS RULED ON IT!!"

But now it is a VRWC, not SCOTUS acting like it always has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

"same obvious point". Yeah, very rarely does the SCOTUS do anything quickly. 

Oh, they are quite quick to make sure people get executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Oh, they are quite quick to make sure people get executed.

And they were WAAAY quick to install Dubya in the White House in 2001

Even Sandra Day O'Connor said she rued that vote. 

Do the Reichistas on SCOTUS always vote the same way? 

No, only about 95% of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And they were WAAAY quick to install Dubya in the White House in 2001

That seems to be at odds with your complaint that they don't move fast enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Just shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Yeah, I realize actually thinking about what the "professor" writes is difficult for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

No, only about 95% of the time.

Cite.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpm57 said:

Cite.

 

 

22 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

That seems to be at odds with your complaint that they don't move fast enough.

 

9 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Yeah, I realize actually thinking about what the "professor" writes is difficult for you.

 

Says the dumb motherfucker that takes 22 minutes to read 4 lines of text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Says the dumb motherfucker that takes 22 minutes to read 4 lines of text.

Wow, profound. Did you have anything useful to add, or are you still trying to grok why I said the professor is contradicting himself?

I mean, you might have to scroll back a whole handful of posts. It might cut into your posts-per-hour rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bpm57 said:

That seems to be at odds with your complaint that they don't move fast enough.

OK, so lets do this again, veeeeeeeerrrry sloooooowly  . . 

The oligarchic hack SCOTUS can indeed move really quickly when it comes to protecting the interests of our 

corporate overlords - but when those interests are challenged, it's slow walk city. 

Kapish ?  Probably not. 

https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2096

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 7:45 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Your usual Bull- Pucky 

this is qualitatively different, and as a semi-sentient being, you well know it

Flatterer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2020 at 4:35 PM, Shortforbob said:

More woe for Trump or ultimate victory?

Trump's conduct going under the microscope. starting testing ..and more testing this month and onward.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-supreme-court-confronts-trumps-challenge-to-the-separation-of-powers

During his confirmation hearing, in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh insisted that “one of the greatest moments in American judicial history” was the case of United States v. Nixon, in 1974. In a unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, one of President Richard Nixon’s appointees, the Supreme Court rejected Nixon’s claim of absolute executive privilege, ordering him to comply with a judicial subpoena to turn over the White House tapes that would lead to his resignation. In an article from 2016, Kavanaugh wrote, admiringly, that the Justices “stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law.”

In the coming months, several cases will test the Court’s strength in this regard. In each of these cases, President Donald Trump is attempting to block the examination of his conduct, by claiming that the chief executive is immune from various forms of investigation. At stake in these cases is the public’s ability to know about, and seek accountability for, misconduct.

But, more important, they represent a gut check for our system of separation of powers. As the Supreme Court hears these cases, beginning this month and extending through the next term, it will enter what may prove to be among its greatest moments or its worst.

 

The most important of the crop is Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, about whether a court can force the President’s close aides to obey congressional subpoenas, against the President’s orders.

More than a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the former White House counsel Don McGahn, ordering him to testify about Trump’s possible obstruction of justice, corruption, and abuse of power. Trump directed McGahn to disobey the subpoena, and McGahn did not appear before Congress. (Trump’s former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and his former national-security adviser John Bolton disregarded similar subpoenas, also on Trump’s orders.) Last August, the Judiciary Committee asked a district court to compel McGahn to appear. The Trump Administration claimed, in response, that the constitutional power of the President entails “absolute immunity” for his close aides. A district court rejected that sweeping claim, stating bluntly that “presidents are not kings.” But, in February, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vindicated Trump by holding that courts don’t have the constitutional power to address Congress’s complaint, even if flouting congressional orders is unlawful. That means that Congress must negotiate with the President to get executive officials to appear or take enforcement into its own hands—although it’s been more than a century since Congress directed its sergeant at arms to jail people in the Capitol for contempt (and the Administration claims that Congress lacks that power as well). This week, the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case, and appeared to favor Congress’s arguments—just as the Administration blocked Anthony Fauci from testifying, this coming Wednesday, in a House investigation on the White House’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Whatever the result of the case, it is sure to head to the Supreme Court.

In addition to fighting the McGahn subpoena, Trump is pressing lawsuits challenging legislative and judicial subpoenas of his financial and business records, stretching back to 2010. Three of those cases will be argued before the Supreme Court by teleconference, on May 12th, after arguments were postponed earlier this spring because of covid-19.

Two of them, Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, involve House subpoenas for Trump’s financial information, which the committees on Oversight, Financial Services, and Intelligence issued to his accounting firm, Mazars, and to Deutsche Bank and Capital One in April, 2019. The committees claim that the subpoenas are meant to inform investigations into how to legislate in a range of areas, including government ethics, financial disclosures, money laundering, and foreign influence on elections.

Trump claims that Congress’s true purpose with these subpoenas is to determine whether he committed criminal wrongdoing, and that Congress is really engaged in law enforcement, which is an executive function rather than a legislative one. Two appeals courts, and two district courts before them, correctly decided against Trump, because seeking information in investigations, in order to aid in consideration of legislation or impeachment, has long been part of the role of Congress.

These cases are likely less controversial for judges than the McGahn case, because the subpoenas were directed to private parties rather than an executive official, so the dispute presents less of a direct conflict between Congress and the President.

 

Also on May 12th, the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Vance, Trump’s challenge to a similar subpoena, from a grand jury in the investigation of his business dealings by the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. As part of Vance’s investigation, which targets Trump for possible criminal indictment, his office demanded Trump’s financial records, including his personal tax returns, from Mazars.

The Justice Department’s long-standing position is that the President cannot be federally indicted while in office, but, as a state prosecutor, Vance is considering indicting Trump under New York criminal law, during or after his Presidency. Trump claims that the constitutional power of the chief executive, combined with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land,” means that no prosecutors may target him while he is President, even for investigation. Trump is also claiming that a criminal prosecution would distract him from doing his job, an argument that Bill Clinton made to the Supreme Court, in 1997, in an effort to have Paula Jones’s civil sexual-harassment lawsuit halted during his Presidency.

There’s certainly something to the idea that it’s very difficult for anyone, let alone a President, to perform his or her job while facing prosecution or even a civil suit—but the Supreme Court unanimously decided against Clinton, saying that, while lawsuits over conduct from before a Presidency may distract from executive duties, they are not barred as a matter of constitutional separation of powers.

Criminal prosecutions may be different. But, while concerns about subjecting a sitting President to criminal indictment seem justified, they are far less persuasive when it comes to merely conducting an investigation, and especially with regard to a subpoena to a third party, which doesn’t require anything of the President.

In his court fights, Trump is repeating a refrain that the only constitutional means to hold a President accountable for wrongdoing is impeachment. But, of course, we know that Trump was able to hamstring his impeachment last year by directing disobedience of congressional orders, making House Democrats vulnerable to criticism that they proceeded without key evidence. (The House even attempted to rebuke Trump’s defiance by tacking on “obstruction of Congress” as an impeachment article.) Then Trump’s lawyers said during the Senate trial that the House hadn’t tried hard enough to pursue judicial enforcement of subpoenas for the missing evidence. Trump went on to claim in court, in a bald Catch-22, that courts cannot enforce subpoenas for evidence of his wrongdoing because the proper avenue for Presidential accountability is . . . impeachment.

Now the separation of powers is in danger of being reduced to a nauseating merry-go-round, in which neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can check the President, because each says that the other should do it. Solving this dilemma is now thrust on the Court, which will decide Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank together by this summer, and Trump v. Vance in the same time frame, and must also be thinking about the likelihood that it will hear the McGahn case next term.

 
 

In one or more of the instances of Presidential resistance to legal orders, the Court could find that Trump has overestimated his power. Or it could find, to the contrary, that Congress, or Vance, cannot compel executive-branch officials—or private parties—to provide information about the President.

While the Vance case will be the easiest for the Justices to decide against Trump, it could well be accompanied by a win for Trump in the cases involving congressional subpoenas. In those cases, the Court may use the off-ramp that the D.C. Circuit panel took in the McGahn case, saying that the Constitution does not allow a court to decide. Just two weeks before oral arguments, the Supreme Court hinted at the attractiveness of this last option by asking the parties and the Justice Department for supplemental briefs about the Court’s authority to adjudicate the cases. This direction could be particularly appealing to the conservative majority, which may be loath to decide against the President but also doesn’t wish to endorse Trump’s disobedience of legal orders.

Even that option, though, would create the unfortunate appearance of acquiescing to a President who has regularly denigrated the authority of both Congress and the judicial system, particularly if the decisions were to split, with a familiar 5–4 conservative majority.

Republicans in Congress have put the Court in a particularly difficult position. President Nixon threatened in advance to disregard a Supreme Court order to hand over the White House tapes. In the end, he complied, because it was clear that, if he didn’t, his impeachment was certain; at that time, Republicans in Congress would not have tolerated disobedience of the Court. But in this hyperpartisan moment, congressional Republicans and their constituents might not condemn Trump’s obstruction of a court order, let alone allow it to become the basis for another impeachment or other political sanction. It’s possible that, in anticipation of that, some Justices might even feel that siding with this President, or not deciding at all, is a better way of protecting the Court’s authority than standing up to him.

During this Presidency, Chief Justice John Roberts has resisted the pervasive narrative of judicial partisanship, famously rebuking Trump’s swipes at judicial independence, by insisting, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” but rather “judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

The Chief Justice may want to find a nonpartisan compromise—but, in these cases, one does not exist. That would counsel in favor of the Court standing up to the other branches and enforcing the separation of powers in a merits decision, much as it did in the Nixon case.

For those at the top of the judicial branch, there is a motivation that is greater than partisanship: the desire to retain the perception of legitimacy that is most crucial to maintenance of its power. That legitimacy now hangs on the Court’s ability to demonstrate that neither the President nor any party is supreme over it.

 
 
 
Jeannie Suk Gersen is a contributing writer to The New Yorker and a professor at Harvard Law School.
**paragraphing mine.

This is why Gorsuch and the rapey frat boy were nominated. There will be no principles, expect a party line split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

OK, so lets do this again, veeeeeeeerrrry sloooooowly  . . 

The oligarchic hack SCOTUS can indeed move really quickly when it comes to protecting the interests of our 

corporate overlords - but when those interests are challenged, it's slow walk city. 

Kapish ?  Probably not. 

https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2096

Yeah, and we are back to "waah, the don't move fast enough", while directly talking about a case the CADC ruled on.. that is being reheard en banc.

Should SCOTUS wait for the CADC en banc decision, or just skip it to make you happy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 12:51 PM, AJ Oliver said:

No, but when it is a vital matter of national import, they should not put their finger on the scales. 

Pretty obvious, I would think. 

If Trump gets away with it, you can kiss your separation of powers goodbye. 

And BTW, as Trump has shown, we has no more respect for the judicial Branch than he does for the Legislative Branch

It was so important that Schiff couldn't be bothered to wait for a ruling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

It was so important that Schiff couldn't be bothered to wait for a ruling?

More of your innorant blather 

Shiff & the House asked the SCOTUS for expedited decisions . . 

instead those Reichistas in robes did the oligarchy slow-walk shuffle 

(How strange for the local Reich to defend judicial activism!!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

More of your innorant blather 

Shiff & the House asked the SCOTUS for expedited decisions . . 

instead those Reichistas in robes did the oligarchy slow-walk shuffle 

(How strange for the local Reich to defend judicial activism!!) 

Schiff did not peraue the matter....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

Schiff did not peraue the matter....

Well, uh, no he did not peraue it -whatever the hell that means 

but he did try to expedite it - some courts did so, but not the ones that count 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, uh, no he did not peraue it -whatever the hell that means 

but he did try to expedite it - some courts did so, but not the ones that count 

Schiff did not persue the issue in the court. He stopped when rhe WH ignored the District Court ruling. Schiff did not go the next step. These facts are well documented. The question never went to SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Shiff & the House asked the SCOTUS for expedited decisions . . 

You should have no problem showing his court filings then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, warbird said:
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, uh, no he did not peraue it -whatever the hell that means 

but he did try to expedite it - some courts did so, but not the ones that count 

Schiff did not persue the issue in the court.

Want to try for third time lucky you illiterate dimwit?

Here's a hint - that wavy red line under a word is telling you it's misspelled.

Put your drink down long enough to check your post and you might get a smidge of credibility.

 

Wait...

Nevermind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lessee, we provide credible sources on the courts' corruption . . 

and the anonymous trolls of the Reich give us mis-spelled incoherencies  

whom to believe - Gee that is such a toughie 

@Sloop John B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Lessee, we provide credible sources on the courts' corruption . . 

Still waiting for you to link Schiff's SCOTUS filings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Shiff & the House asked the SCOTUS for expedited decisions . . 

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 12:09 AM, AJ Oliver said:

The oligarchic hack SCOTUS can indeed move really quickly when it comes to protecting the interests of our 

corporate overlords - but when those interests are challenged, it's slow walk city. 

They did a pretty good job of protecting Pfizer's interests against those nutjob libertarians in the Kelo v New London case, wouldn't you say? By the way, where do you stand on that one?

At least you've stopped running around saying silly stuff like this:

On 1/6/2019 at 7:10 AM, Steganographic Tom said:
On 1/6/2019 at 12:25 AM, AJ Oliver said:

First ya gotta understand that corporate personhood is a complete "out the wazoo" legal fiction - NEVER approved by the peeps reps. 

In addition to being approved by reps, Washington State voters just passed an initiative themselves that says, among other things, this:

Quote

(20) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint
stock company, or other legal entity.

Will of the people and all, you know?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

At least you've stopped running around saying silly stuff like this:

Oh sweet jeebus, not this again. 

It's peeps like you who give deja vu a bad name !!

Since I did not accept your total BS several times before, 

why do you think I will accept it now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Since I did not accept your total BS several times before

Huh, Washington state seems to think initiative 1639 passed.

https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639

Do you have a better source that shows differently?

Still waiting for a link to those Schiff SCOTUS filings you have told us about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Still waiting for you to link Schiff's SCOTUS filings.

 

 

10 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Huh, Washington state seems to think initiative 1639 passed.

https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639

Do you have a better source that shows differently?

Still waiting for a link to those Schiff SCOTUS filings you have told us about.

IIRC Schiff said in an interview "We don't have time to wait for a court review" Referencing how important this impeachment proceeding was.  Imagine, if you will, Schiff following the legal steps, requesting and waiting for a SCOTUS answer and in the interim letting the congress deal with other pressing matters brought before it, a strange virus in China for example?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 9:35 PM, Shortforbob said:

More woe for Trump or ultimate victory?

Trump's conduct going under the microscope. starting testing ..and more testing this month and onward.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-supreme-court-confronts-trumps-challenge-to-the-separation-of-powers

HOLY SHIT.  BIG FONT AND LOTS OF IT

 

So two things, melster.....  Why do you feel the need to paste the ENTIRE FUCKING article into this post given you've added a link.  Maybe better to just add a paragraph or two that succinctly summarizes your point.  And two, if you are going to include the entire fucking thing, there is this feature at the bottom of the post before you hit "submit" that says something like "paste as plain text instead".  If you click that right after you paste your stuff into this page, it will reduce the font to the normal size.

Jesus, my finger from scrolling the touchpad is still sore.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, warbird said:

 letting the congress deal with other pressing matters brought before it, a strange virus in China for example?

 

I didn't know the CDC was an agency of the congress.  hmm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I didn't know the CDC was an agency of the congress.  hmm.

Comgress was notified of China Virus early January. Congress had more pressing issues. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump and the Republicans really do kill the federal government, do the justices expect to be paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Amati said:

If Trump and the Republicans really do kill the federal government, do the justices expect to be paid?

Thirty pieces of silver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Thirty pieces of silver.

^_^   & then what- they only convene court when the parties can agree that they’ll abide by the ruling ( Kind of like Judge Judy), but each side will need to pony up $20,000 / hr + whatever Trump’s cut is.  Oh, and it will be televised....  :blink:.  Guess who the host might be?  Mencken will be laughing in his grave......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current SCOTUS majority are extremist partisan hacks. . 

and I can prove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

The current SCOTUS majority are extremist partisan hacks. . 

and I can prove it

That's why you need at least 21.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The current SCOTUS majority are extremist partisan hacks. . 

and I can prove it

Please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Since I did not accept your total BS several times before, 

why do you think I will accept it now? 

I'm an optimist and believe one day you might tire of name calling and start reading. If that happens, you'll see that the people have indeed voted for corporate personhood. Facts about politics are facts, whether or not polisci professors find them convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Please do.

Why do I always have to do the Reich's homework for them? 

I think Whitehouse lays it out pretty well  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-court-has-become-just-another-arm-of-the-gop/2019/09/06/8ad36642-d0e2-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

But here too, I am not overly optimistic about the outcome here - since your ELK does not believe in facts or truth. 

I could also bring up the Court's horrible and racist record, for the better part of a century, for refusing to enforce the 14th amendment for all but corporations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The current SCOTUS majority are extremist partisan hacks. . 

and I can prove it

 

7 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Please do.

 

11 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Why do I always have to do the Reich's homework for them? 

I think Whitehouse lays it out pretty well  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-court-has-become-just-another-arm-of-the-gop/2019/09/06/8ad36642-d0e2-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

But here too, I am not overly optimistic about the outcome here - since your ELK does not believe in facts or truth. 

I could also bring up the Court's horrible and racist record, for the better part of a century, for refusing to enforce the 14th amendment for all but corporations. 

An OP ED is not proof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, warbird said:

An OP ED is not proof. 

To a liberal polysci community college prof - any opinion that agrees with him might as well be the tablets hand delivered from the burning bush by Moses hisself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS does indeed sway in the political winds. At some point they may turn away from their infatuation with the corrupt corporatist faction of the conservative movement. Like the Lincoln Project patriots have. They have their legacies to worry about. It's may be all they have beyond whatever tiny grifts they can wrangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

An OP ED is not proof. 

Are the facts laid out by Whitehouse accurate? (Not that you will even read it to check) 

And puleeze, don't lets even get started on what passes for "evidence" among the Reich 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Are the facts laid out by Whitehouse accurate? (Not that you will even read it to check) 

And puleeze, don't lets even get started on what passes for "evidence" among the Reich 

One of Whitehouse'  "facts" is the Afscme case. What is constitutionally oncorrect about the decision? Mostly he just points out the Conservative organizations have become almost as effective as liberal organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And puleeze, don't lets even get started on what passes for "evidence" among the Reich

Well, actually posting a link Schiff's SCOTUS filing would be nice. The one you told us about days ago.

But it is cute that an op-ed is now the source of all truth. But only if it comes from a (D). If it came from an (R), it would be just lies, right?

Isn't senator whitehouse the lead author of a thinly veiled threat to SCOTUS? Oh, why yes he is: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112010/20190812151259076_18-280bsacSenatorSheldonWhitehouse.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

One of Whitehouse'  "facts" is the Afscme case. What is constitutionally oncorrect about the decision?

Well, the unions lost. I'm sure that is enough for the "professor".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Why do I always have to do the Reich's homework for them?

Because you're gullible?

 

Trump Supporters.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meli, you copy and pasted the entire article, instead of just the link. And you couldn't be bothered to actually include the name of the author? I've seen some of Jeannie Suk's lectures, she engaging, and she apparently worked her ass off to know what she knows and to have her her work stolen off the New Yorker website and pasted in its entirety here by you. When people read her article here, rather than click through to the New Yorker site, she doesn't get the credit with the views/reads. Isn't it something of an insult to injury that you didn't bother to even include her name?

Writers deserve to be fairly compensated and credited for their work. That's not a left vs. right thing, it's not an American' vs. Aussie thing, it's just basic decency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

Meli, you copy and pasted the entire article, instead of just the link.

Some people talk too much. 

Way too much. 

Basic decency (and the soul of wit), is brevity.

Keep it short Mikey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

Some people talk too much. 

Way too much. 

Basic decency (and the soul of wit), is brevity.

Keep it short Mikey.

I've bugged Meli for years about the need to give other writer's their credit where their credit is due. Gradually making progress, at least now she includes the link, even if she still deprives the writers of their revenue.

You are welcome to take over if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I've bugged Meli for years about the need to give other writer's their credit where their credit is due. Gradually making progress, at least now she includes the link, even if she still deprives the writers of their revenue.

You are welcome to take over if you like.

Good onya for cites. BTDT.

I have my own battles, thankyouverymuch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

President Trump claims he is to be too busy with "important duties" to be held accountable.

Yesterday, he issued more than 100 rage-Tweets in an 8 hour period.

He wants to be King.  The Faithful agree.

President Trump to claim 'absolute immunity' from subpoenas in Supreme Court appeal

And, of course..." The Justice Department has filed an amicus brief siding with the president."

Lapdog Barr is earning his keep.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And, of course..." The Justice Department has filed an amicus brief siding with the president."

Lapdog Barr is earning his keep.

 

Brief on what case, seems there are several. Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Brief on what case, seems there are several. Cite?

Um, maybe it has something to do with the link in the post he quoted.  THAT case, you moron.

Are you really this stupid?  Does it come naturally to you or have you had to work hard to develop this density?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at warbird just wasting your time with a smile on his face, it makes much more sense. He’s not the brightest bulb, bu5 he doesn’t give a fuck. Like soreass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing SCOTUS majority is fretting about is how to make their unitary executive decisions only apply to (R) executives. Didn't they do that with the Florida recount/coronation debacle? Didn't they explicitly say their beautiful well-reasoned constitutional-originalist thinking wouldn't apply to the next guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Um, maybe it has something to do with the link in the post he quoted.  THAT case, you moron.

Are you really this stupid?  Does it come naturally to you or have you had to work hard to develop this density?

Well, there is New Jersey, New York,  Comgress, if Schiff was bullshitting as about not waiting...... Sticking with "News", Hampshire  and Mexico too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

Well, there is New Jersey, New York,  Comgress, if Schiff was bullshitting as about not waiting...... Sticking with "News", Hampshire  and Mexico too.

Man, you just dig in your heels and try and explain away your cluelessness. 

Go back and read Post #72, again. This time, read all of it, and ask yourself “What in the post Ish is quoting might give me an idea to what case he is referring?”  

Take your time, go ahead and move your lips, we’ll be here when you return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

we’ll be here when you return. 

Don't count on a return - you're talking about the 

essence of bad faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 9:18 AM, warbird said:

 

IIRC Schiff said in an interview "We don't have time to wait for a court review" Referencing how important this impeachment proceeding was.  Imagine, if you will, Schiff following the legal steps, requesting and waiting for a SCOTUS answer and in the interim letting the congress deal with other pressing matters brought before it, a strange virus in China for example?

 

If the Senate had followed the evidence and removed his ass in a timely fashion, who knows? Maybe somewhat else wouldn't have screwed the pooch and killed 80,000+ Americans?

BTW, the notion that Trump was "distracted" by the impeachment is laughable, when you look at the reality of how much time he spent playing golf and holding rallies even after the impeachment ended on 1/25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ishmael said:

And, of course..." The Justice Department has filed an amicus brief siding with the president."

Lapdog Barr is earning his keep.

 

You mean an executive branch department is going to side with the executive? Is it news to you that water is wet as well?

Or is this just more of the usual from the echo chamber? Bad if (R) are in office, not worthy of mention if it is a (D)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Maybe somewhat else wouldn't have screwed the pooch and killed 80,000+ Americans?

If the senate had removed Trump, Pence would be president, not Hillary BJ.

Of course - I'm sure the Schiff leak machine would of been restarted going after Pence. Maybe you could of had your dream in the end, president Pelosi.

" But also to say to everyone: we should come to Chinatown.  Precautions have been taken by our city.  We know that there is concern surrounding tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it’s very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come." Pelosi's comments on 2/24

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/22420

But I'm sure in your alternate universe, president Pelosi would of taken actions contrary to all the (D) press releases in the Feb/Mar timeframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bpm57 said:

If the senate had removed Trump, Pence would be president, not Hillary BJ.

Of course - I'm sure the Schiff leak machine would of been restarted going after Pence. Maybe you could of had your dream in the end, president Pelosi.

" But also to say to everyone: we should come to Chinatown.  Precautions have been taken by our city.  We know that there is concern surrounding tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it’s very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come." Pelosi's comments on 2/24

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/22420

But I'm sure in your alternate universe, president Pelosi would of taken actions contrary to all the (D) press releases in the Feb/Mar timeframe.

Yup. And while Pence may be a dead-eyed dimwit with mommy issues who wants to bring about the apocalypse, at least he's not the same breed of crazy/corrupt that Trump is. I don't think he's in on the long con in quite the same way. There's a chance he might not have fucked it up so badly, even though our response capabilities by then had already been severly hampered by Trump's incompetence and anti-Obama vindictiveness.

And while Pelosi had some information on COVID, just like back in the Iraq war days when the GOP was lying to Congress and the people to do stupid and dangerous things, the Whitehouse, no doubt, had much information it was lying about and concealing from Congress and the world to excuse what it was doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:
8 hours ago, bpm57 said:

If the senate had removed Trump, Pence would be president, not Hillary BJ.

Of course - I'm sure the Schiff leak machine would of been restarted going after Pence. Maybe you could of had your dream in the end, president Pelosi.

" But also to say to everyone: we should come to Chinatown.  Precautions have been taken by our city.  We know that there is concern surrounding tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it’s very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come." Pelosi's comments on 2/24

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/22420

But I'm sure in your alternate universe, president Pelosi would of taken actions contrary to all the (D) press releases in the Feb/Mar timeframe. 

 

"would of"? "could of"? Fucking illiterates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites