Maybe not quite yet. Note that the decision was handed down by a three judge panel. I’m guessing that the lawyers will ask the full D.C. Circuit Court to review the panel’s decision. Of course, seven of the Court’s 12 judges were appointed by Democrats.
Then after the full Court decides - either way - the lawyers will appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal will go to one Justice, who happens to be John Roberts. He can either accept the petition to appeal, or deny it, which will just start another round of procedures.
It’s true that the Supreme Court can act really quickly, when it makes up its mind to do it. But this is like a game of bridge. You have to play every trick before the game can end. The sheer number of procedures is going to slow down the process.
Just to add to this, which kinda got lost in the latest Guiliani story.
I’m not sure why he couldn’t have just watched a training film or discussed this with career officials.
I would agree that it’s absurd to suggest what is noted above, as a general rule. But if the reasons the admin acted in the way it did was not to ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent, but instead for private gain, then obviously this is a problem. Not that this is a groundbreaking assertion. I’m just saying that this bears watching, I think.
This is true. But keep in mind that there are two cases - one, brought by Richard Neal’s subcommittee under the statutory right to retrieve any tax return directly from Treasury, is still undecided in district court. This one was filed by House Oversight and deals with a subpoena issued to Trump’s accountant, Mazars. In this case, and in another currently before the Second Circuit, Mazars has taken the position that they don’t give a shit and will obey the court to either withhold the information or produce it.
I don’t know anything about her, but it seemed inevitable that at some point, someone who worked in the Trump admin would come forward who for whatever reason actually wants to testify as to what went on. It sounds big, indeed. We will see what happens.
Rao’s dissent is even a little more bonkers when you consider that the law that allows congress to subpoena anyone’s tax returns was written specifically with President Harding in mind.
As implied by others, Roberts doesn’t decide if the appeal will be heard. They all vote on it.
Regarding Roberts “deciding” on whether the appeal is heard by the court as the swing vote, I’m still not cynical enough to believe that it’s a forgone conclusion the other conservatives are guaranteed to vote against bringing it up. If I were a justice, this would not seem to be the best way to build a reputation for myself as fair-minded, which I certainly would want to do.
You might be right about Roberts, but most of the rest seem pretty locked into their ideological channels. Fiddle Peghead was arguing that they might be more “fair-minded” on this issue. I’m skeptical.
Once they have the ultimate independence of a seat on the Supreme Court, they might guard that independence in a Niemolleran sense of preventing divide and conquer. If the judiciary is sidelined then you don’t need them anymore.
Or maybe they won’t. A naked move to summarily dismiss Congress would be ruled 8-1 against with a dissent by Thomas. Anything else I’m not sure about.
