Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Trump v. Vance .... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Vance .... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
windywave wrote:
The Trump decision is meh and immaterial.

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

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

Bwahahaha. Now that is damn funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Vance .... [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
slowguy wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
7-2.


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.


I see this:

Quote:
The court said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. had the authority to subpoena the records from Trump’s private accounting firm.


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

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...)
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Vance .... [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brick wrote:
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.

Thanks!

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Vance .... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
klehner wrote:
slowguy wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
7-2.


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.


I see this:

Quote:
The court said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. had the authority to subpoena the records from Trump’s private accounting firm.


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


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.

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

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

Prev Next