Most of the opinion columns I have seen assume that the Supreme Court will rule that Trump bankers and accountants must comply with congressional and state court subpoenas. There is ample precedent for this view and I hope it proves correct. What if it does not? What if they rule that while in office a President is immune from investigation by anyone- maybe unless it is for an (undefined) good reason. What then? Do we need to riot in the streets? Is democracy dead?
We’ve had numerous “democracy is now dead?” moments these past few years. It’ll still survive.
As for rioting in the streets, it is okay if wearing masks and six feet apart.
The GOP SCOTUS will probably side with Trump, as it usually does. This shouldn’t be surprising – it’s a Republican-controlled branch of government right now. This sucks and hopefully it will change, but that’s how it is.
I expect it very well may side with Trump along party lines, and I disagree that democracy has survived in the US.
So far, the court is reacting quite skeptically — even Thomas and Alito — to Trump counsel’s argument that the president, and anyone evenly remotely connected to the president, cannot be investigated while he is in office because UNLEGAL. Nixon and Clinton are NOT PRECEDENT.
If SCOTUS sides with Trump then the congressional overview of presidents will be over if the same party controls the Senate. If they side with Trump, the likely argument will be that if Congress has a problem with the conduct of a president with whom they take issue with stonewalling an investigation, then the recourse is impeachment. Since impeachment is now toothless if the Senate is the same party as the president will infer that if the president’s party and the Senate then the president is above the law.
In the long term, such a ruling would not be good for American democracy, which is increasingly flirting with fascism.
It is o.k. for democracy to be dying as long as it isn’t quite dead yet?
The oral arguments in Trump v Mazars (the first oral arguments today) were going along reasonably balanced until Justice Alito questioned the House counsel Douglas Letter. Letter had tremendous difficulty articulating a limiting principle. Even Breyer seemed troubled by that in a second round of questioning.
It was a face plant. Not being well prepared to offer an argument for a limiting principle in a case like this is a huge mistake.
I don’t think that’s accurate. According to the WaPo, when Roberts objected to the “is the request legislation-related” test,
So, there are two different tests suggested.
Frankly, if the records request isn’t interfering with the president’s ability to carry out duties, I don’t see why we need a limit outside of the next election cycle. Congress’s oversight of the executive branch is fundamental to the balance of the branches. If they’re turning it ugly, vote 'em out.
Up until Alito’s questioning of Letter I would have agreed that it was 4-4 with the usual partisan split with Roberts to make the deciding vote. After Alito’s questioning, and particularly after Breyer’s follow up, I’d say 6-3 for Trump, possibly even 7-2.
Sotomayor tried to bail out Letter with her questioning immediately following Alito. It did not go well for Letter.
The justices plainly wanted a limiting principle. It was up to each attorney to argue for a principle that would put their client on the winning side of the dividing line. Letter was not up to the task of articulating a limiting principle.
So far the arguments in Vance are leaning pretty heavily against Trump.
“What happens” is that we have a dictator, not a president, who is above the law and cannot be legally held accountable for anything he does or does not do.
If the SCOTUS sides with the white house it won’t be the end of democracy in the US; I am sure they will reverse the decision as soon as a Democrat is in the office.
Even if five Justices vote on the side of democracy, Trump will just order his IRS lackey not to comply. It’s all a charade.
This is the answer. What is going to happen if SCOTUS rules against Trump, and Trump just says “I don’t care. I’m still not going to hand them over”?
Nothing, that’s what is going to happen.
I agree with this. This is a tough case for me to decide. On one hand, Congress and local prosecutors need a way to enforce their subpoena power for legitimate investigations. On the other, this seems transparently political to me.
It’s no secret what is behind this. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns was front and center in the 2016 campaign. He then promised to release them after the election, and then he backed out of doing that. This has been a pissing match since then to get Trump’s tax returns and the House and the NYC DA are giving bullshit justifications for wanting them.
It looks to me as if the entire Court is wanting to find the sweet spot. They reject both extreme arguments. They reject Trump’s “absolute immunity” or “political question” argument, but they also do not like Congress’ (or the DA’s) argument that they can just issue these subpoenas as a matter of course.
The Justice Department has come up with a pretty good limiting principle (a heightened scrutiny of a subpoena against the executive branch) but Letter has completely whiffed on such a principle.
I predict a 9-0 punt. These parties need to provide a heightened justification and we’ll kick it back to the District Court to analyze it under our new standard.
It strikes me as unfair for justices to expect that one side must be rational and serve them up a limiting principle for the subpoena power while also not demanding a limiting principle for the other side which is basically arguing total and complete presidential immunity.
The justices did question Trump admin lawyers on this, and they (the lawyers) basically admitted that congress has some ability to compel evidence as part of their oversight function.
The liberal justices are also (or ought to be) looking further beyond down the road than Trump’s presidency, which may end in a mere eight months. The next Republican Congress can use all kinds of subpoenas or suits against the next Democratic president.
But the Justice Dept. did offer a limiting principle–a heightened need.
And Ginsburg talks about the 10th Amendment…hahahahaha! I don’t think she’s ever been concerned about it before.
The point of Congress doing oversight into the President and the Executive Branch isn’t to “protect our guy/fuck over their guy,” it is to curb abuses. If people don’t like the oversight Congress is doing, take it up at the ballot box.