You left out little sisters and the Catholic school 7-2 yesterday which are significantly more important

oh and half of Oklahoma was just ceded to the Creeks

The two Trump appointees concurred, Thomas and Alito dissented.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Are you paid by the deflection or something?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No but assuming we're talking the whole docket. The Trump decision is meh and immaterial. They get the tax returns and in a few months indict or not. Little sisters and the Catholic school case actually have meaningful ramifications.

ETA and half of Oklahoma just evaporated

Deflectors at full, Mr. Sulu!

We are not - the thread is titled - Re: Trump v. Vance

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Sounds like kind of a mixed bag ruling. Pres Trump loses on the idea that he might be exempt from criminal subpoena, but the ruling seems to send the decision about whether he will have to release his financial records back to lower courts, and provides the President more opportunity to fight.

It doesn't seem like this ruling provides any path to seeing those records before the elections, so while it might be a legal defeat for POTUS, it might be a victory in practical terms.

Maybe I'm not understanding the ruling. I've only got what I'm seeing online or on the news.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Bullshit on all the above. Your sole purpose here was "But Clinton!". Had you seriously been interested in these other decisions, you (or, more accurately, a reasonable version of you) would have created your own thread(s), or just not bothered to comment here (since it is such a nothing-burger).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

About fucking time.

I see this:


Where do you get the idea that this is somehow going back to lower courts?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I started a new thread simpleton. Enjoy the boring intellectually deficient discussion in this one.

Simple simpleton the FUCKING ORDER SAYS SO.

So you are ending your redirection attempt? If so, good.

windy is deflecting. The Little Sisters case is pretty narrow, they just ruled trump's rule change is allowed. This means Biden could change the rule right back.

If the access to Coward Twumpy's tax returns are so meaningless, why did he fight against it all the way to the SC?

Where do you get the idea that this is somehow going back to lower courts?

The last footnote of Roberts' majority opinon states, "The daylight between our opinion and JUSTICE THOMAS’s “dissent” is not as great as that label might suggest. Post, at 12. We agree that Presidents are neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas nor insulated by a heightened need standard. Post, at 6, 11, n. 3. We agree that Presidents may challenge specific subpoenas as impeding their Article II functions. Post, at 6–7. And, although we affirm while JUSTICE THOMAS would vacate, we agree that this case will be remanded to the District Court. Post, at 12."

If I recall correctly, Trump asserted Presidential Immunity suggesting that he was either absolutely immune from such subpoenas or that a heightened need must be demonstrated before such a subpoena can be enforced. Those arguments to prevent enforcement of the subpoena were rejected. There may be other arguments to prevent enforcement of the subpoena which were not argued or presented. Those arguments may now be interposed. It appears the majority agrees that at least one such argument is interference with POTUS' Article II functions. It is reasonable to believe that Trump will make this and possibly other arguments on remand.

Piss off wanker

Different thread

They are meaningful to him. In the grand scheme not that meaningful or interesting.

Yup. They gave his lawyers a roadmap.

I consider myself pretty well educated and able to understand most things legal. I am by no means a lawyer, just a senior executive that spends a lot of time talking to lawyers or listening to them talk. With that said, this ruling has me a little confused.

Here is what Fox News is reporting. Before you throw rotten vegetables at me for going to Fox, read the article. It is pretty well centered:

https://www.foxnews.com/...cords-vance-subpoena

If I am reading it correctly, the court returned the case to the lower courts only to be reviewed as a valid reason to release the financial records. They ruled that if a lower or state court had a good reason to see a sitting president's financial records (or anything else for that matter) then they have the legal right. They did not rule that in this case there is a good reason. That is what they told the lower courts to figure out.

What confuses me is what there is to figure out. I seems to me that every court that heard the case said Vance could have the records. Same with congress. So what does the Supreme Court think is going to happen in this new review? That the lower courts are going to rule against Trump again, and then Trump is going to go back to SCOTUS and argue that the reason is invalid?

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Trump v. Vance - give the records

Trump v. Mazars - go back for a more narrow review

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Read the last paragraph of the syllabus

Read the last paragraph of the syllabus


Then read the opinion, or at the very least the portion the syllabus references. Do not rely on the accuracy of the syllabus.

Bwahahaha. Now that is damn funny. Thanks for the laugh.

I think others have addressed this, but my take is this. This ruling said that the DA had the authority to issue the subpoena. It didn't
t say that Pres Trump was legally obligated to provide records. Trump's team contended that simply issuing the subpoena was illegal just because he's the President and shouldn't be subject to such things. The court said it's not. However, they also said that Pres Trump, like anyone else, still has the right to contest the specific subpoena and whether he should have to comply, and that would happen in lower courts.

Two separate issues. 1. Can the President be issued subpoenas? 2. Does Pres Trump have to comply with this specific subpoena or can he challenge it on its specific legal merits?

They answered question 1, and said the lower courts would have to answer question 2.

My initial take, for what it's worth.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Thanks!

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

That seems accurate. The never-ending lawsuits shall continue...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"