Please don't get upset or worked up about the Supreme Court taking these cases

[StarfishSaver]

Accepting cert does NOT mean the Court is going to side with Trump. In fact, it could very well mean the opposite.

Take a breath, everyone.

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

Also, do not expect anyone to recuse themselves because Trump appointed them. Rehnquist did in the Nixon case because he worked within the afministration, not because Nixon appointed him. Keep in mind how others Nixon had appointed voted in that case.

This is a good thing.

[StarfishSaver]

5. Thank you

And thank you for pre-empting the Rehnquist argument.

[H2O Man]

10. More than glad to.

I've seen some friends here suggesting two Justices recuse themselves. I think memories have faded in regard to why Rehnquist did. And it is really important to keep in mind that Nixon was bitterly disappointed that those he appointed didn't support him above the Constitution.

Sometimes, conservative judges are better in such cases, as republicans cannot pretend their rulings are "political."

[wnylib]

42. True, but times were different then. Today

the Republican Party is in tight lock step. Remember, SCOTUS delivered the WH to Bush.

[H2O Man]

50. Oh, yes, definitely.

The USSC is imperfect, and has made a number of horrible decisions. And there are a few justices on the court that I wouldn't trust to decide a traffic ticket. Yet there have also been important decisions protecting the Constitution, and I think there are enough competent people on the court that we are likely to get the correct decision.

[wnylib]

51. You have more faith in them and more optimism

than I have. A June decision is so close to the election that I cannot even imagine a decision that would rule against him. Not from a conservative court with 2 members appointed by him.

[BigDemVoter]

54. Agree 100%

I don't trust those fucking a-holes one little bit. . . . Brett Kavanaugh has already shown what's he's made of, and it's repig SHIT.

[H2O Man]

56. Interesting.

In my early life, I learned to not trust anyone. It was from the teachings of Malcolm X that as a poor kid from a rural small farm that this began to shift. Malcolm taught the advantages of placing people on a scale of zero to one hundred, per how much you can safely trust them. He noted that it isn't safe to trust anyone -- not even your self -- 100%. But that there are some that are zeroes.

Now, my experience with public officials is pretty close to that of the individuals I met with as a forensic mental health worker. Much of that "public" experience came by way of my work with Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and with Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. Not all of those experiences were positive -- that's for sure!

Some times, ordinary people do extraordinary things. Likewise, under certain circumstances, even bad people can do the right thing. I'm hoping that is the case here.

[wnylib]

59. Well, I do not trust everyone and I do not distrust

everyone. But I do distrust people who demonstrate that they are not trustworthy. Once they do that, they have to prove themselves to me and it will be harder for them to win over my skepticism.

SCOTUS has not won me over since 2000.

[VMA131Marine]

2. It only takes 4 votes to approve cert, not a majority,

[still_one]

3. What disturbs me is the delay. They really should expedite it

[jberryhill]

15. Has either party yet moved to do that?

[StarfishSaver]

18. Didn't they already do that when they agreed to ask the Court to rule this term?

[jberryhill]

23. I guess

How late do they usually take a case for the current term?

[still_one]

41. ???

[jberryhill]

44. Ah...

For a court to do something, someone has to ask.

[still_one]

45. and i dont know.the answer to your inqiry. Thanks

[jberryhill]

46. Neither do I

[underthematrix]

4. My question is why are they waiting until March to hear case and then June

to rule. They know Trump is being impeached and the docs requested are part of the inquiry?

[StarfishSaver]

6. These requests aren't part of the impeachment inquiry.

They're part of separate investigations and the outcome of the case will have no bearing on impeachment.

[jberryhill]

16. Because that is the ordinary schedule

One of the parties, however, may very well move to expedite the schedule.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Because that's the way the Supreme Court calendar works.

Apparently no request has been made (yet) for expedited review, as in the Nixon tapes case. And these cases aren't directly related to the impeachment issues anyhow.

[OliverQ]

7. The law is already settled and all the lower courts sided against Trump.

The current makeup of the court and the fact that McConnell basically bought the Judiciary indicates they're only taking this up to establish new precedent that Congress has no oversight in this area.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Not true

This is not settled law. These are cases of first impression and the cases that have been decided are binding only in their individual circuits - meaning courts in other circuits could rule differently. It's very possible the Court has taken the case in order to settle the issue once and for all.

And obviously McConnell doesn't have the control over the courts you think, as evidenced by the string of losses Trump has faced in district and appellate courts across the country.

[OliverQ]

74. The majority of Trump's losses were in front of Obama, Clinton, or Bush

Judges. We see with Judge Rao in the DC Circuit that his judges are leaning towards siding with him with terrible legal reasoning. It won't be long until the over 150 right-wing, unqualified Trump judges McConnell has been stacking start getting more Trump related cases and siding with him.

You're truly naive if you think the Judiciary is going to save Democracy.

[StarfishSaver]

79. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Bushes, Obama or Clinton

So, the precedent that all of the lower courts (even the Trump judges) willl have to follow is being set by a court that, by your standards, is more likely to rule against Trump.

And, FYI, I'm not being naive. I'm simply stating facts based on how the courts actually work, not engaging in "We're DOOMED" hysteria based on assumptions not rooted in reality.

[SayItLoud]

33. Am I correct they combined all the cases?

If so, that seems very odd.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Yes, they did

Actually, it's not odd at all. It's not uncommon for a court to consolidate cases that are connected or turn on similar issues, as these do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Because there are three cases addressing basically the same issues -

separation of powers and the authority of Congress to conduct oversight - it makes sense that they would hear them to resolve the questions. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

[barbtries]

11. it feels predictable.

i am discouraged. not worked up necessarily. weary of it all and at a low point hope-wise.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Yes, here's the graveyard...

...and here's us whistling past it.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Not at all

I suspect that just about every lawyer on DU who is familiar with the Court will say the same thing I'm saying

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. I agree with you. There are three cases that raised important issues

related to the separation of powers doctrine, and it makes sense to hear them in order to resolve those questions.

[jberryhill]

24. Meh

The subpoena is directed at a third party, so it could have been left alone. It's not going after any Constitutional actor.

[StarfishSaver]

25. But the issue is whether a president can assert absolute immunity from investigation

so the issue is directly related

[jberryhill]

26. That issue is not necessary to resolution of the case

[StarfishSaver]

37. That issue is essential to resolve one of the cases.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. True, but as I understand it that's not the only case.

There were three sets of subpoenas. One of them was directed to Mazars from the Manhattan DA for eight years of tax records related to the Stormy Daniels hush-money payments. The second one came from the House Oversight Committee, which wants to know about the hush money and also whether Trump misstated the value of his assets to obtain loans or reduce his taxes. The third set of subpoenas were issued by the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees and were addressed to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, seeking financial records related Trump, his family and his businesses. So the latter two cases involve the power of the House to exercise oversight by demanding a president's financial information.

[MarcA]

35. Agreed and lawyer talk doesn't change reality. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

36. "Lawyer talk"?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

69. it's The Sanity Clause ...

(From A Night At The Opera, I think)

[Codeine]

73. All yer high-falutin' big words and stuff

don’t matter none.

[Hekate]

13. KnR

[Sneederbunk]

19. What it could mean is that a decision will be delayed until after the election.

Mission Accomplished.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. No, they are saying it will be released this term, in June.

[Grasswire2]

22. NOTHING tells us we should hope for the best here and expect it to be.

We have to start working backwards, based now on repeated evidence and performance of this administration.

Expect the worst in every situation and work to prevent that worst from happening.

When we "take the high road" we have found the bridge sabotaged beneath us. Over and over and over again.

Stop expecting any good will, honorable intentions, bipartisanship or even competency from the other side.

This is a fight for America, as surely as was the fight of the 18th century against a monarchy.

[MarcA]

38. Separation of Powers Question to be decided by the Branch

that is more equal than the other two. Unelected job-for-life rulers,
they are the monarchy.

[Grasswire2]

58. If Dems sweep in 2020, it's time to take up some matters.

Term limits or rotating terms for SCOTUS. Term limits for Congress. A review of the presidential powers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. Those things would require constitutional amendments

and could not be accomplished only by Democrats in Congress.

[StarfishSaver]

80. It couldn't be accomplished by Congress even if Democrats did have the numbers

Constitutional amendments also have to be ratified by the states.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

83. Exactly. Constitutional amendments aren't quite impossible, but almost;

the process is very, very slow and usually doesn't go very far. In 230-some years only 33 amendments have been ratified and some were repealed (we now have 27), although approximately 10,000 have been proposed. So to glibly suggest that "we" should just amend the Constitution to do something or other ignores the reality of the process.

[StarfishSaver]

84. You're right, as usual.

[MarcA]

92. Agreed. The amendments process is not a promising choice.

What to do then?

[FBaggins]

86. Not at all

It will be decided by two branches of government against the third... exactly as was intended.

[wnylib]

47. Agree completely. We have to fight hard. not

necessarily fight dirty, but we must recognize what we are up against and cannot afford to pretend that it is.business
as usual any more. It is not and the sooner we recognize that and act accordingly, the better.

I lost faith in the Supremes in 2000 and they have done little to restore it since.

[Baked Potato]

28. Thanks for your postings

Much appreciated.

[CanonRay]

29. This case scares the hell out of me.

I didn't think they'd touch it. I cannot for the life of me see how they could possibly side with Trump, but.......................

[bluestarone]

30. Would it be a bad idea or good idea for

The House or NY to ask for a speedier decision? I almost believe a faster decision would benefit the House AND NY. Your thoughts please. I feel there is NOTHING more important in our country right now that would over ride this.

[SayItLoud]

31. Or that, they reply in April or March;

Since it's so close to an election, we don't want the court to have undue influence; one way or the other therefore we will take this up in December 2020. Just sayin....

[bucolic_frolic]

32. Courts can't function if information is secret

Subpoenas, discovery, police reports all dependent on information. Presidents would have been dictator a long time ago if SCOTUS had accepted a ruling like this. So yes, on the surface, it's not a lot to worry about. Except for the Imperialist Gang of Five.

[Imperialism Inc.]

34. There's every reason to be concerned.

It only takes 4 to grant cert but if those 4 are pretty certain the swing vote, John Roberts, is just going to let the prior decisions stand then they have no reason to look like a bunch of partisan hacks. The fact they've taken the case means that either they have reason to believe Roberts is persuadable or that the 4 are such blatant partisan hacks they are willing to do anything for Trump. Neither is a good thing.

There is a good discussion from a few weeks back on the Opening Arguments podcast about the calculus here. https://openargs.com/tag/trump-tax-returns/ (around the 59 minute mark)

Link to tweet

[jcgoldie]

52. The reason they would do it is the same reason the republicans have been doing everything

Run out the clock to election day.

[aggiesal]

40. They should have never taken the case ...

As DU Member cstanleytech replied in an early post

There is no clause in the Constitution that gives the Court the power to block Congress
from conducting its own investigation into the actions of a President.
If the Court tries to force an opinion that blocks congress, that opinion would be a violation
of the Constitution as the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress to be a
check on a President and they cannot do that job should the Court try to block them.

How would Congress get remedy from that?

[angrychair]

43. Sure the intent is to be positive

But given recent statements by the Senate majority leader and the seemingly persistent and relentless rise in Executive branch power, we have already devolved into fascism and a unitary authority government.
The USSC has no more authority over trump than Congress.
The Hollow Men poem comes to mind:
"This is how the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper"

[StarfishSaver]

48. This isn't about trying to be positive. I'm trying to help people understand what this means and doe

The granting of cert is not grounds for jumping to the doom and gloom conclusions that some are.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

49. "Take a breath, everyone." Is that safe now?

Pollution for profit is real, again. If we can't get that thing out of our White House, and most of his like-minded minions out of various elected positions, the whole world is going to look like Los Angeles back in the late '60s.

Oh, you were just talking about the SCOTUS thingy. By the time they get around to ruling, we may all be nuclear ash or already know whether or not the Turd Reich has begun.

[stillcool]

60. que sera, sera...

Even though I presume to know the future, I really don't, and neither does anyone else. Why does the expression of hope, bring out the nasty in people?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

67. "Here be dragons"

We are in unexplored territory. There's no way to know whether SCOTUS will aid in defense of democracy or its destruction. As indicated in the OP, we cannot know how the ruling will go and it will not come soon. The timing means there's nothing to get worked up about now. Any ruling that comes in June of next year may inspire more people to get involved, which can be a good thing.

What nasty? Did I miss something?

[iluvtennis]

53. But it's yet another stonewall delay for trum. Court hears case in March 2020. Ruling in June.

[StarfishSaver]

55. This still leaves plenty of time

But what do you think a better alternative would have been?

[iluvtennis]

57. To let the lower court rulings stand. Did the SC have to take this appeal.

[StarfishSaver]

61. If they had let the lower court ruling stand, he'd just come up with another excuse

and/or raised the same issue in a different court - and without the Supreme Court weighing in to resolve this issue now, he could have delayed this long past the election.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Trump lawyers are NOT thrilled that the Supreme Court has taken this case and will decide it by June. This could go very badly for Trump.

[dware]

66. Thank you again StarfishSaver

for trying to educate the naysayers and doomers and gloomers about this issue.

Personally, I think the Mango Menace is in for a very rude surprise.

[iluvtennis]

68. Thanks... appreciate your thoughts. nt

[Kablooie]

62. But they won't decide until June so Trump is fully protected until then.

[StarfishSaver]

63. Protected from what?

[Kablooie]

64. Protected from having his taxes scrutinized.

[StarfishSaver]

65. I'm willing to wait

[Hermit-The-Prog]

70. is he?

This doesn't include the case of the House Ways and Means committee, does it?

[Garrett78]

71. In sane times, the court wouldn't hear the case. But the US is just a giant asylum at this point.

[StarfishSaver]

72. In sane times, such a case would never have come before the Court

[Bettie]

75. We've been told over and over that it will all be OK

and still, at every turn, it gets worse.

What I've learned is that our system only works if all parties agree that laws are a thing.

Currently, one side doesn't believe that and there is, apparently, no method or means of enforcing anything.

I believe that the court will side with him because I've come to the realization that for right wingers, there is no low that they won't sink it.

Party over country, every single time.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have very little hope left.

[StarfishSaver]

81. How has it gotten worse?

So far, Trump has lost nearly every court case.

The courts have rejected all of Trump's attempts to expand his power and to limit Congress's.

Things have definitely. It "gotten worse."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

77. Barbara McQuaid made some interesting remarks about this case:

She said she thinks the Supremes will uphold the lower courts' decisions, not only because there is so much precedent supporting those decisions, but because it gives the court a great opportunity to establish its independence from the executive and its power as an equal branch of the government. Even the conservative justices don't want to be seen as the president's lackeys.

[mucifer]

78. I hate to say that we need to consider RBG's health

[StarfishSaver]

82. I don't think that's a factor in this instance

Because I don't believe the decision will be a close one.

[bluestarone]

85. Just for the record here

If tRUMP were to resign, would this case be DROPPED? and never answered? Like in March sometime.

[StarfishSaver]

89. Great question!

I don't know the answer for sure. On the one hand, the argument that he has some kind of temporary immunity
would no longer be an issue because he'd no longer be president. But the Court could still decide the issue still raises a "case in controversy" that needs to be ruled upon.

He'd also probably invoke other defenses unrelated to his position as president, including arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to obtain private citizens' financial records.

Interesting to think about.

[bluestarone]

91. TY for your response!

I would hope they would rule on just the premise of the power of ANY presidential power in this regard. THIS does need to be decided being we're this close. Could (would) the House include this in their argument in March? Thanks again!

[Doormouse]

87. I have individual rights concerns.

I see the house requests as an unrestrained expedition in hopes of finding something. Let us examine anything we want in hopes of finding something bad. Just doesn’t feel right to me.

[StarfishSaver]

90. Seriously?

This is one of the arguments Trump's lawyers are making. It's be and is no more legally or constitutionally valid when posed here than coming from them.

[ehrnst]

94. Take it easy on that straw man there ... "unrestrained?"

If one feels a need to misrepresent someone else's argument in order to make one's point, then perhaps one needs to reexamine the point one is trying to make.

Especially if that point is the same one Trump's lawyers are trying to push.

[Politicub]

93. Good advice. It's hard sometimes, though.

It feels like the dominionists have the end goal in their sights and are moving forward at full speed.