Appeals Court Dunks On Trump

Navig8tor

Super Anarchist
7,317
1,886
For Donnie,  its a bad news Friday

From The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/11/donald-trump-news-today-impeachment-inquiry-ukraine-politics-live-updates


Federal court rules Trump broke the law by declaring national emergency to get border wall built


The news will not stop coming today. A federal court has just ruled that Trump violated the law by declaring a national emergency at the US-Mexico border to get his wall built.











Niskanen Center


 
@NiskanenCenter




 




 
BREAKING: A U.S. federal district court has ruled that President Trump violated the law by declaring a national emergency in order to build a border wall. https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Texas-Border-Wall.pdf …












 

1,678


6:54 AM - Oct 12, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy






 


972 people are talking about this

 






 



 




David Smith reported this back in February:


Donald Trump has defied fierce criticism to announce that he is using emergency powers to bypass Congress and pursue the building of a wall on the US-Mexico border.

At a combative, rambling and at times incoherent press conference in the White House, the US president insisted he had no choice but to declare a national emergency to stop illegal immigrants spreading crime and drugs.

Yet Trump admitted that he did not ‘need’ to take the step now and was only doing so for speed. Opponents seized on the remark to accuse him of falsehoods and fearmongering for political ends, describing the move as ‘unlawful’ and a violation of the US constitution.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,161
5,018
De Nile
This dissent makes no sense to me. Is she saying that Congress cannot investigate impeachable offenses? If not, how could they possibly hold onto the power of impeachment?

"Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress's legislative power," Rao said. "Throughout our history, Congress, the President, and the courts have insisted upon maintaining the separation between the legislative and impeachment powers of the House and recognized the gravity and accountability that follow impeachment."

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
45,989
4,224
Not here
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #5
This dissent makes no sense to me. Is she saying that Congress cannot investigate impeachable offenses? If not, how could they possibly hold onto the power of impeachment?

"Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress's legislative power," Rao said. "Throughout our history, Congress, the President, and the courts have insisted upon maintaining the separation between the legislative and impeachment powers of the House and recognized the gravity and accountability that follow impeachment."
The dissent believes that Congress must commence an impeachment in order to investigate impeachable offenses.   She distinguishes legislative subpoenas from impeachment-based subpoenas, and says that in her opinion, this is an impeachment-based subpoena improperly characterized as a legislative subpoena.  

 

Ishmael

Why is it so hot, and why am I in this handbasket?
50,971
11,257
Fuctifino
This dissent makes no sense to me. Is she saying that Congress cannot investigate impeachable offenses? If not, how could they possibly hold onto the power of impeachment?

"Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress's legislative power," Rao said. "Throughout our history, Congress, the President, and the courts have insisted upon maintaining the separation between the legislative and impeachment powers of the House and recognized the gravity and accountability that follow impeachment."
She's making shit up, just like all the other Trumpaloons.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,792
3,849
New Oak City
Very long read for a civilian, more than I can handle. It appears that the whole argument is whether “the subpoena has a legitimate legislative purpose”. Indeed, Shitstain asserts no claim of executive privilege or immunity.

I do find the opinion easier to follow than the dissent. But that's all I can say. I'll let my legal betters figure this one out. This is pretty clear though:

The fact that the . . . underlying conduct might also be unlawful ... does not invalidate the inquiry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/trump-mazars-appeal-decision/index.html

tax returns comin' soon. Hell of a decision, they really didn't leave much room for SCOTUS to overrule without destroying 200 years of precedent.
The Constitution and our historical practice draw a consistent line between the legislative and judicial powers of Congress. The majority crosses this boundary for the first time by upholding this subpoena investigating the illegal conduct of the President under the legislative power," Rao wrote

Clean, what do you make of the bolded bit?  Not "the alleged illegal conduct", but "THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT".  That seems like a concession that there has been illegal conduct on the part of the President.  Supreme Court Judges normally pick their words with extreme care - this wouldn't be an inadvertent oversight ... wassup?

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
45,989
4,224
Not here
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #12
The Constitution and our historical practice draw a consistent line between the legislative and judicial powers of Congress. The majority crosses this boundary for the first time by upholding this subpoena investigating the illegal conduct of the President under the legislative power," Rao wrote

Clean, what do you make of the bolded bit?  Not "the alleged illegal conduct", but "THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT".  That seems like a concession that there has been illegal conduct on the part of the President.  Supreme Court Judges normally pick their words with extreme care - this wouldn't be an inadvertent oversight ... wassup?
She ain't no supreme court justice.  She's a whackadoodle.  Here's some stuff.  

here's a good analysis of the silliness of her dissent.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-subpoena-mazars-neomi-rao.html

 

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
She ain't no supreme court justice.  She's a whackadoodle.  Here's some stuff.  

here's a good analysis of the silliness of her dissent.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-subpoena-mazars-neomi-rao.html
Sorry, got my jurisdictions mixed up.  But isn't she just doing exactly what she was put there for?  Protect the president who put her there?  And she was appointed by Trump precisely because of the whacky right wing views she has espoused all along.  Your fucked up system of appointing partisan judges politicises what is portrayed as "justice".   

But, that's your system and presumably people like it, or it would have been changed.  

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,161
5,018
De Nile
She ain't no supreme court justice.  She's a whackadoodle.  Here's some stuff.  

here's a good analysis of the silliness of her dissent.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-subpoena-mazars-neomi-rao.html
Ahh, ok, so just another fundamentalist nutter:

Her dissent, however, is utterly detached from Supreme Court precedent and instead rooted in a startling and novel conception of presidential power. It rests on the assertion that “allegations of illegal conduct against the President cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.” According to Rao, impeachment “provides the exclusive method for Congress to investigate accusations of illegal conduct by impeachable officials.” If the House attempts to probe the president’s alleged wrongdoing on any basis other than impeachment, he is insulated from its demands.

This claim is bizarre, shocking, and just plain wrong. There is no Supreme Court precedent to back it up, so Rao resorted to the “text, structure, and original meaning” of the Constitution. But as Tatel pointed out, Rao’s theory clashes with the Framers’ expansive vision of legislative power, which included the ability to gather relevant facts. Under Rao’s view, Tatel wrote, “Congress must either initiate the grave and weighty process of impeachment or forgo any investigation in support of potential legislation.” So lawmakers would have to enact legislation “uninformed and with its oversight function informationally crippled.” Tatel continued

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
45,989
4,224
Not here
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #15
Sorry, got my jurisdictions mixed up.  But isn't she just doing exactly what she was put there for?  Protect the president who put her there?  And she was appointed by Trump precisely because of the whacky right wing views she has espoused all along.  Your fucked up system of appointing partisan judges politicises what is portrayed as "justice".   
the majority of judges tend to think big picture, because they will be there long after the president is gone and they really do have an interest in preserving the public's confidence in the judicial system. The vast majority take that seriously, and I honestly believe that the whole Trump thing is more of a historical accident than a fundamental change in the country. Sure there are a few nutcases who will be dispensing what they claim to be justice, but the transparency of the judicial process puts a spotlight on the real nutters.

The brilliance (or stupidity) of the political system is that it is designed to change very, very, very slowly.  That's why federal judges get lifetime appointments.  That's why you need a 67% majority to override a veto or remove a judge or president.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
42,547
8,716
Eastern NC
Sorry, got my jurisdictions mixed up.  But isn't she just doing exactly what she was put there for?  Protect the president who put her there?  And she was appointed by Trump precisely because of the whacky right wing views she has espoused all along.  Your fucked up system of appointing partisan judges politicises what is portrayed as "justice".   

But, that's your system and presumably people like it, or it would have been changed.  
Usually judges are not appointed on such a partisan basis. I'm a little taken aback that such looney-tunes managed to function as judges in the first place, my few experiences in court have mostly been with judges that were sensible, serious, and ... dare I say... judicious.

OTOH I do know of some pretty whacked decisions by judges

This gal Rao will be Trump's next nominee for the Supreme Court

- DSK

 
Top