Jump to content

SCOTUS rulings 2020

Nice Guy Eddie

By Nice Guy Eddie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31280

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Wow, Roberts took Vance, leaving Mazars for Sotomayor. Looks like today is a good day.

And it's 7-2, and commences:  

Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard, for the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.

Hahaha.  

Fuck Trump.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted

Vance isn't too surprising, though I thought Kavanaugh might be against. Assigning Mazars to Sotomayor is, though. Figured Roberts would want to control how that was written, even if it was against Trump. Maybe he just doesn't want his name on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

One caveat, though.  The Second Circuit actually remanded to the trial court for further consideration.  The Supremes affirm that judgment.

Was just about to post this. Not sure on how quickly that might progress, but I've got to imagine this keeps anything that matters out of the grand jury's hands until after the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21736

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Was just about to post this. Not sure on how quickly that might progress, but I've got to imagine this keeps anything that matters out of the grand jury's hands until after the election.

That’s where this is a win for DT.  No way the returns see the light of day before the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted

So basically, in both cases 7 justices dismissed Trump's frivolous arguments, giving the people a substantive victory, but remanded, giving Trump a procedural victory. 

It is still a pretty big fucking problem that 2 justices were completely fine with accepting Trump's completely frivolous arguments.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Question for the law talking guys...

Even if his tax returns aren't dealt with until after the election, he can still face criminal charges for any nefarious activity, right? Unless he is theoretically pardoned? 

He can't be pardoned for breaking state laws. Well the NY governor can pardon him for that but not the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Question for the law talking guys...

Even if his tax returns aren't dealt with until after the election, he can still face criminal charges for any nefarious activity, right? Unless he is theoretically pardoned? 

In theory, yes. As NGE notes, he can't pardon himself for state crimes. I don't think he can pardon himself for federal crimes either, but that's just my own "that would be absolute fucking bullshit" take and there's no precedent on that. I'm sure he'll issue a pardon for himself as he's dragged out, so we might finally get some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31280

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's really bullshit that they effectively rewarded Trump for making ridiculously overbroad claims in lieu of particularized objections. 

Well, I suppose the issue of waiver wasn't before the trial court and the court of appeals. but now it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So basically, in both cases 7 justices dismissed Trump's frivolous arguments, giving the people a substantive victory, but remanded, giving Trump a procedural victory. 

It is still a pretty big fucking problem that 2 justices were completely fine with accepting Trump's completely frivolous arguments.

I can’t speak for Alito, but I think Clarence Thomas just really hates the Democrats because of his very contentious confirmation hearing. It seems like he has never missed an opportunity to stick it to the dems during a court case. Some people hold grudges and he seems like the type.

I can’t wait for Thomas to retire, but I hope it’s after Trump is hopefully voted out this fall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31280

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

I can’t speak for Alito, but I think Clarence Thomas just really hates the Democrats because of his very contentious confirmation hearing. It seems like he has never missed an opportunity to stick it to the dems during a court case. Some people hold grudges and he seems like the type.

I can’t wait for Thomas to retire, but I hope it’s after Trump is hopefully voted out this fall.

That is probably a solid analysis.  Revealed in part by his opposition to the public figure/1st Amendment defense to defamation cases.

He's still boiling over SNL.

Also, retirement by Alito or Thomas actually stands to improve the court, even if replaced by R appointments.  And even for Democrats/liberals.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1932

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

from roberts:

this is not accurate, no?

In 1800, every elector got two votes.  They were both votes for President.  Whoever got the most votes was President, 2nd place got VP and a set of steak knives, 3rd place was you're fired.  Very GlenGarry.

Jefferson and Burr ran together as Democrat-Republicans against the incumbent Federalists.  It was the first election with presidential tickets.

All of the Jefferson/Burr electors voted for Jefferson and Burr.  The plan was to give Jefferson one more vote, making him president and Burr VP.  Somehow the plan did not work and they tied.  This threw the election in the House of Representatives, where each state got one vote.  They voted again and again but Jefferson kept getting 8 of 16 votes and he needed 9 to win. On the 36th ballot he got 10 and won the election.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3360

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

from roberts:

this is not accurate, no?

Quote

Burr ran for president in the 1796 election and received 30 electoral votes, coming in fourth behind John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Pinckney.[29] He was shocked by this defeat, but many Democratic-Republican electors voted for Jefferson and no one else, or for Jefferson and a candidate other than Burr.[30] Jefferson and Burr were again candidates for president and vice president during the election of 1800. Jefferson ran with Burr in exchange for Burr working to obtain New York's electoral votes for Jefferson.[30]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So basically, in both cases 7 justices dismissed Trump's frivolous arguments, giving the people a substantive victory, but remanded, giving Trump a procedural victory. 

It is still a pretty big fucking problem that 2 justices were completely fine with accepting Trump's completely frivolous arguments.

all of this.

thomas and alito can get fucked. 

headline looks like a victory, but it is no victory at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

all of this.

thomas and alito can get fucked. 

headline looks like a victory, but it is no victory at all.

It's still nice to hear from an institution with a degree of public legitimacy that we're not an absolute monarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17447

Posted
Posted

I know some are upset that Supreme Court kicked some of the issues down to the lower court, but that seems to be the proper result here. I really can't disagree with either opinion. We all agree the President isn't immune from state subpoena, and now we have a unanimous Supreme Court on that. And, it seems right to me that congressional subpoenas need some legislative justification for seeking the President's personal records as opposed to other records that could equally inform the drafting of legislation. Ultimately,  the upshot, is that Trump isn't going to be able to protect his information even if he wins re-election. That seems like a pretty big deal to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11668

Posted
Posted
Quote

The President’s primary contention, which the Solicitor General supports, is that complying with state criminal subpoenas would necessarily divert the Chief Executive from his duties. He grounds that concern in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which recognized a President’s “absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” 457 U. S., at 749. In explaining the basis for that immunity, this Court observed that the prospect of such liability could “distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment of not only the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.” Id., at 753. The President contends that the diversion occasioned by a state criminal subpoena imposes an equally intolerable burden on a President’s ability to perform his Article II functions.

i like that this was the primary argument of the Tweeter/Cable News Watcher in Chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8807

Posted
Posted (edited)

These rulings are like soft core porn. It looks like something that could be really good, but in the end you really don't see anything, and there is no money shot. 

Edited by Mo Horn
  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's still nice to hear from an institution with a degree of public legitimacy that we're not an absolute monarchy.

i guess. like i said, the headline doesn't match the story. they have effectively punted while saying all the right things about punting. it's frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3286

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

all of this.

thomas and alito can get fucked. 

headline looks like a victory, but it is no victory at all.

Alito and Thomas need to go hang out with their GOP buddies at the convention in Jacksonville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12568

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

In 1800, every elector got two votes.  They were both votes for President.  Whoever got the most votes was President, 2nd place got VP and a set of steak knives, 3rd place was you're fired.  Very GlenGarry.

Jefferson and Burr ran together as Democrat-Republicans against the incumbent Federalists.  It was the first election with presidential tickets.

All of the Jefferson/Burr electors voted for Jefferson and Burr.  The plan was to give Jefferson one more vote, making him president and Burr VP.  Somehow the plan did not work and they tied.  This threw the election in the House of Representatives, where each state got one vote.  They voted again and again but Jefferson kept getting 8 of 16 votes and he needed 9 to win. On the 36th ballot he got 10 and won the election.

As recounted in song:

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I know some are upset that Supreme Court kicked some of the issues down to the lower court, but that seems to be the proper result here. I really can't disagree with either opinion. We all agree the President isn't immune from state subpoena, and now we have a unanimous Supreme Court on that. And, it seems right to me that congressional subpoenas need some legislative justification for seeking the President's personal records as opposed to other records that could equally inform the drafting of legislation. Ultimately,  the upshot, is that Trump isn't going to be able to protect his information even if he wins re-election. That seems like a pretty big deal to me.

He won’t be able to protect that info, legally speaking. But if he wins re-election, I’d be surprised if any third party target of a valid subpoena complied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i guess. like i said, the headline doesn't match the story. they have effectively punted while saying all the right things about punting. it's frustrating.

Time to jump on board my “John Roberts is a piece of shit” train!  We’ve got plenty of room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31280

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

So lawdogs, how does the house subpoena ruling work?  Is it similar to the SDNY one, where the WH gets to argue against the house subpoena?  What court would that argument happen in?  

Ok, looking back.  In the Vance case, Trump sued Vance trying to enjoin issuance of the subpoena.  The trial court dismissed the case on an incorrect ground, as found by the Second Circuit, who also found that Trump had no right to oppose the subpoena.  The Supremes affirmed the latter part.  So I think the remand to the court is simply for entry of judgment against Trump on the ground that he has no right to oppose a subpoena.  Not much to appeal there.  That particular trial court is no place to raise mere objections.  That's going to have to be done somewhere else if it can be done at all.

On the House case, the trial court is going to have to apply the new test, articulated in the last few paragraphs of the majority opinion, to evaluate the validity of the house subpoena.  That one is going to entail substantial litigation and an appeal and possibly another grant of cert.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texaspython

Texaspython 231

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

That’s where this is a win for DT.  No way the returns see the light of day before the election. 

I’m not so sure. These are grand jury subs and they’re almost always secret. However, from what I understand Mazars is ready to deliver the docs immediately. Once Vance gets them he can write an indictment, submit to the gj and get it returned in almost no time at all. That indictment becomes a public record and then the DA can talk about their evidence public ally as much as they want. That’s typically not a good strategy for a successful prosecution but this is a unique situation.

I’m not a NYV lawyer so this is speculation but I’m not so sure it’s a big win for Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...