Supreme Court ruling on Trump's tax returns, financial records to come Thursday

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court will announce Thursday whether congressional committees and a New York prosecutor are entitled to see President Trump’s personal financial records, after the president has waged an intense legal battle to keep the material secret.

The court said Wednesday that opinions in all remaining cases would be issued Thursday. The court in May held teleconferenced hearings — with the world listening in — on three cases with potential landmark constitutional consequences.

All concern Trump’s long-running legal fight to shield years of income tax returns from public view and keep his private financial records from the hands of Democratic-led House committees and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

The court’s decisions will carry major implications for the limits of presidential power and accountability, and could affect the fall election.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-trumps-tax-returns-financial-records-to-come-thursday/ar-BB16uooD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP

[usaf-vet]

1. Why would the SCOTUS issue a ruling on birth control medication in the ACA if they intend to KILL IT

Makes no sense to me unless the are not going to kill the entire ACA - Obamacare. Of course, I'm not a lawyer or a SCOTUS expert.

[Miguelito Loveless]

13. Because there was a case, and they have to issue a ruling

Also, they want to make sure that if the ACA is somehow resurrected, employers will have the power to decide what is covered and what isn't.

[WestMichRad]

22. The SCOTUS ACA case is scheduled for oral arguments in the fall term.

They won't be issuing a ruling on that case tomorrow.

Texas v. California, docket # 19-1019 was consolidated with California v. Texas, docket #19-840: see https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/california-v-texas/ for a summary of proceedings and orders to date.

[Bev54]

2. Maybe

What are the chances they ask for the case to be reargued like they did with citizens united so they don't have to make a decision before the election. There seems to be a case of cowardice with this supreme court.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. So,Roberts is protection his Pal Donnie once again.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. No way they will force release of his tax returns

They don't want to wade into this brouhaha. Nor establish a precedent for suing the president. They will say Congress must pass a law.
And I doubt Roberts especially on this one.

[Thekaspervote]

5. Yup!

[rsdsharp]

6. Congress DID pass a law in the 1920s to

address the Tea Pot Dome Scandal. The NY AG subpoena is part of a criminal investigation. It will be 5-4 in Trump’s favor anyway.

[Bayard]

16. That's what i don't understand about this case

This has been established law for a very long time. WILL the Supremes uphold the law, is the big question.

[rsdsharp]

17. It's possible, but this is just about the most

ideological court majority in history.

[cstanleytech]

7. Yup he will pass the buck once again in order to protect Trump.

[CaptainTruth]

11. That would set a precedent that could seriously limit Congressional oversight.

For SCOTUS to rule against Congress it seems like they would have to invent some requirement for Congress to justify their oversight actions in some way, a requirement which is not in the Constitution.

[turbinetree]

8. I wonder if Roberts and Trump will go golfing after tomorrow...............

just saying.....................

[chriscan64]

9. Trump works very hard

to hide the proof of his "innocence" and his "greatness" aka wealth.

[Steelrolled]

10. I would be happy for them to deny access to the records

You know that once Biden is in office, there will be non-stop investigations in retaliation

The trial in the Senate failed, let's move on and not make it worse for Biden.

[RT Atlanta]

12. this is true - precedent setting

and we have to trust the SCt is cognizant of this fact

[lagomorph777]

21. We have to give Biden the House and Senate. Otherwise, Russiapublicans will Benghazi him to death.

[Faygo Kid]

15. I PRAY we win 5-4. We need this.

It's all up to John Roberts.

[jcgoldie]

18. I think Roberts tries to thread the needle

I think he'll vote against Trump in the New York AG case and for him on congressional oversight. Its the only way he can keep from being seen as A. a complete partisan hack Trump stooge and B. a traitor to conservatives everywhere...

[CaptainTruth]

19. It seems like most folks are missing a very important aspect of one of these cases...

...the one concerning subpoenas to Mazars & Deutsche Bank et al.

That case is not about a president defying a congressional subpoena, SCOTUS already unanimously ruled in 1973 that the president (Nixon) has to comply with congressional subpoenas (& turn over the tapes).

That case is about congressional subpoenas going to 3rd parties (Mazars, Deutsche Bank, etc) & POTUS stepping in & trying to prevent 3rd parties from complying with those subpoenas.

To me that makes that case a VERY different animal, because if SCOTUS rules POTUS has the power to stop 3rd parties from complying with subpoenas, then POTUS can use that power to hide his own crimes, or the crimes of those in his administration, or family, or friends.

For example, say the president's brother shoots & kills someone. There are several witnesses, but the key piece of evidence is a convenience store surveillance video recording that clearly captured it all. Prosecutors subpoena the video recording. Does POTUS have the power to step in & prevent the convienence store (a 3rd party) from complying with the subpoena, in an effort to save his brother & his own reputation (POTUS desperately doesn't want the stigma of having a brother that's a convicted murderer)?

Yes, I know there are key differences between the actual case & my example, I chose it specifically to illustrate how dangerous it would be to give POTUS broad powers to block 3rd party subpoenas.

[diva77]

20. It's always the worst-case scenario with all things Dump. Hard to have any expectations that

the SCOTUS rethuglican majority will do the right thing.

[Senor Insomne]

23. Come on, Roberts!