Prediction: The SCOTUS ruling in June on Trump financial records will be 7-0

[scheming daemons]

...with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh recusing.


If they don't recuse... it will be 9-0.



Roberts doesn't want to take away the power of the courts. He desperately wants to dispose of the idea that the SCOTUS is just a rubber stamp for Trump.


They will rule 9-0 that a President's financial records from before they were President are not subject to absolute immunity.


And with that ruling "proving" that they are independent and giving them cover .... all of their other rulings in the session will swing in the conservative direction - abortion, DACA, you name it.

[empedocles]

1. Significant that Scotus took the case.

June decision early enough to connect more dots for the election.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh won't recuse.

The only reason Rehnquist recused from US v. Nixon is that he had worked for Nixon in the WH Counsel’s office. The other three Nixon appointees didn’t recuse and Nixon lost anyhow, 8-0.

[bench scientist]

3. maybe

I could see Gorsuch recuse. Kavanaugh won't. He's a too partisan.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Neither one will recuse. Nor should they

[shockey80]

4. I like your prediction. Roberts has a history of doing what you have predicted.

[hvn_nbr_2]

22. Every now and then, Roberts gets a 2 a.m. Dickensian visitation from the Ghost Of Historians Future

and the Ghost Of Historians Future shows him snippets from future history books with highlighted phrases like "Roger Taney and John Roberts," "Roberts and Taney," "Taney and Roberts," etc. Then he makes one or two rulings to try to save his own legacy and the legacy of the court.

(For any who don't know: Roger Taney was the chief justice who wrote the Dred Scot decision.)

[StarfishSaver]

5. I also think the decision could very well be unanimous

Roberts will work hard to cobble together a unanimous decision, even if it means making the ruling as narrow as possible.

There's no reason for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to recuse themselves. Justices don't recuse just because a case involves the president who appointed them.

[shockey80]

7. I agree, no one will recuse themselves.

[getagrip_already]

8. knowing the gop.....

it will be 5-12.

Don't think it will be unanimous, but maybe a max of 3 to side with trump, at least on the core issues.

While they will toss the unitary president crap, they may well find a way to carve out a narrow one time exception for trumps taxes and other financial records.

I'm still dreaming they will rule that not only can a potus be investigated, he can be indicted and tried for serious federal crimes.

It will be interesting to see if they address the "he can shoot someone on 5th avenue and not be prosecuted".

[Polybius]

10. What do you mean by "it will be 5-12"?

There are 9 Justices. Did you mean it'll be 5-4?

[getagrip_already]

18. I was joking they would cheat....

And stuff the ballot box.

[onenote]

13. The issue of whether the president can be indicted will not be an issue in the case

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2019, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The Supreme Court doesn't decide issues not before it.

[getagrip_already]

19. I said indicted....

Not impeached. The issue of indictment in nys is very much before them.

[onenote]

25. I misspoke. But, no, the issue of indictment absolutely is not raised in any of the cases

that are currently before the Court. Or before any lower court for that matter.

[getagrip_already]

29. Nys is attempting to get financial records for grand jury...

Trump is claiming that not only is he exempt from indictment, he is exempt from investigation. He actually made the claim in his brief that he could shoot someone and couldnt be indicted.

Grand juries exist for only one reason - to indict.

So it is before the court. Btw, the courts have never ruled on whether a sitting president could be indicted.

That is just a doj opinion. The doj works for the potus, so it isnt an impartial judgement.

[onenote]

32. I will quote the Second Circuit decision:

In reference to the OLC memos on whether the president can be indicted:"Both memoranda, however, are directed almost
exclusively to the question of whether the President may be indicted—an issue, again, that is not presented by this appeal.

If that isn't clear enough, the court also said the following: "This appeal does not require us to consider whether the President is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the President may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal proceeding. We accordingly do not address those issues. The only question before us is whether a state may lawfully demand production by a third party of the President’s personal financial records for use in a grand jury investigation
while the President is in office."

[getagrip_already]

34. Fair enough... but?

I hadnt seen that, so thanks.

But isnt it also true that scotus can consider issues not specifically raised as long as they believe they are related and important?

They have already joined 3 cases together, so they must be goung free range to a degree.

Just asking. I admit I dont know....

[onenote]

35. Typically the court will not rule on a question not addressed by a lower court.

Nor will they reach a question that they don't have to reach. That doesn't completely rule out a discussion of the issue by the court, but I suspect a majority will balk at reaching the question if they can decide whether the subpoena is valid on other grounds -- in fact, they might send the case back down to the lower court to address that issue if they think it is necessary to resolve the case

While it has been reported that the three cases have been consolidated, the court actually consolidated just two of the cases. The Vance case (the New York case) was not consolidated with the other two, although it is likely that the Court would schedule oral argument on that case for the same day as the two consolidated cases.

[Polybius]

9. Hopefully, you're not a betting person n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

11. That was my immediate thought

Far too much confidence in specific case instead of big picture toward how these guys think and vote

[onenote]

12. Why would they recuse?

As others have pointed out, Justices don't recuse simply because a case involves the President that nominated them.

[andym]

14. At least four justices voted to hear the case

Often, but not always, that happens when they disagree with a lower court's decision. Otherwise they just let the lower court's decision stand.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
"The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. "

[Tiggeroshii]

15. So the best it can be is 5-4 to release?

That's disappointing.

[getagrip_already]

20. Not necessarily...

The courts have a long history of giving deference to the potus. They prefer to let them have their day in court.

It could still be a lopsided verdict supporting the house and nys. But there is a lot of ground between the 3 cases and splitting the issues is very possible.

[coti]

16. The outcome of this case could be the most critical we've seen in many, many decades.

On one hand, if things go as well as the OP expects, it could completely smash the Russia-publicans. Once it is re-established that they aren't going to be able to hide from and evade truth, the lynch pin of their political strategy will be destroyed. A decision at the authority level of SCOTUS would be something they simply couldn't argue with, and it would severely damage their will to continue lying.

On the other hand, if we see something less, something that leaves an opening for the Russia-publicans to continue their lies and corruption without oversight, we might witness the effective end of the United States as a democracy. Without oversight and pushback, checks and balances, the traitors' bubble of lies will grow with their superior marketing, as compared to the Democrats (whose political ineffectiveness really pisses me off). They will become even more emboldened, and there may be a mad rush of corruption, which we're having enough trouble keeping up with, as it is.

I think this is going to be a bellweather case. Are the people who can do it prepared to protect the integrity of our republic, or are they going to rubber stamp a dictator establishing total control? Personally, if they allow Trump to do this, I think I'll be finding a way for my family to leave the United States. I think the best of the country will be well behind us and the corruption will lead to absolute disaster for the country's well-being, directly and indirectly.

[Garrett78]

21. I predict 5-4 in Trump's favor.

It's a sad state of affairs when we're relying on Roberts to do what's right.

[exboyfil]

31. And the ruling will only apply for Republican presidens

/s

[Goodheart]

23. I wonder if any of the justices will address the "president can't be indicted while in office" BS

Seems like a fine time to kill two birds with one stone.

[sandensea]

24. Your words to God's ear

You have more faith in some of these GOP appointees than I do - but here's hoping you're right.

[Sneederbunk]

26. Somehow, some way the returns will not be released before the election.

[brewens]

27. I wonder if Trump having promised to release the tax records numerous times weakens his

case with the court? It should with everyone else, but I have no clue if that hurts him legally with the SCOTUS.

[Va Lefty]

28. You are far more optimistic than I am

Hope you are right

[edhopper]

30. 5-4 for Trump

They took it to reverse the lower courts and give Trump an election year win.

[Calista241]

33. They'll never recuse. Doing so would set a precedent for all future Justices

having to recuse for all cases related to the President that appointed them.