Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, April 27, 2020

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Trump administration and the House to further brief justices on whether the case over the president's financial records can be decided by the courts.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Poor Trumpy.

So little time. So many crimes to hide!

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-04-27 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Remember when the Reps wouldn't let up on Obama and kept looking for some imaginary smoking gun that would allow them to remove him from office? Tag, you're it.

#2 | Posted by humtake at 2020-04-27 02:57 PM | Reply

Upon hearing the news, Trump also ordered new briefs.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-27 02:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

#2 Do you mean the birthers?
Who was leading that baseless smear campaign?
Oh yah, Chump the whiner in chief.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2020-04-27 03:05 PM | Reply

So the Supreme Court will decide cases like Bush v. Gore but they want to evade enforcing a Congressional subpoena because of the political question doctrine.

And people actually still take this institution seriously.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2020-04-27 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Doesn't the lower court ruling stand if the SC gives this a pass?

#6 | Posted by bored at 2020-04-27 04:13 PM | Reply

#6 If they rule the case to be nonjusticiable due to the PQ doctrine, i think they would reverse key lower court orders and remand with instructions to dismiss the case. It's like any other jurisdictional prerequisite.

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2020-04-27 04:17 PM | Reply

#7

We have no clue what the request for additional briefing means. However, if it plays out as you outline then the case is dismissed by the district court leaving outstanding valid subpoenas to private companies. I highly doubt general counsel will recommend ignoring those subpoenas. Bottom line in that scenario, the committee and the NY DA get most, if not all, of the records requested.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2020-04-27 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I highly doubt general counsel will recommend ignoring those subpoenas.

Really?

#9 | Posted by joe at 2020-04-27 04:56 PM | Reply

#9

Yes, the private parties haven't really resisted the subpoenas so far so why start now?

BTW, how many times have you advised a client to ignore a valid subpoena?

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2020-04-27 05:27 PM | Reply

Zero. But let's go back to my point. Can the SC reverse lower court orders requiring compliance with a Congressional subpoena on the grounds that courts do not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case due to the political question doctrine? Because that's what i was talking about, not just a mere dismissal.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2020-04-27 06:09 PM | Reply

The only reason for this action is to delay until after the election.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-04-27 06:43 PM | Reply

Zero.

Yeah, me too.

Can the SC reverse lower court orders requiring compliance with a Congressional subpoena on the grounds that courts do not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case due to the political question doctrine?

Of course. But that's just part of the case as I understand it. Political question only applies between the committee and the Buffoon. He injected that issue not the banks and the accountant. If that aspect goes away, by whatever procedure, then there remains an enforceable subpoena against the private parties.

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2020-04-27 07:15 PM | Reply

The only reason for this action is to delay until after the election.

This does not affect the timing of a ruling. The case is scheduled, and has been, for argument on May 12. There has never has been a deadline for the court to rule ruling.

Interestingly, it is expected the oral argument will be streamed real time rather than the usual recording being released later.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2020-04-27 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Interestingly, it is expected the oral argument will be streamed real time rather than the usual recording being released later.
#14 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Who makes the decision to do that and what do you suppose the purpose is behind the deviation from the norm?

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-04-27 07:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15 No live audience?

#16 | Posted by bored at 2020-04-27 07:57 PM | Reply

#15

The court makes the decision. Since the argument will be by teleconference, live stream of audio is the only way to permit public observation.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2020-04-27 09:01 PM | Reply

@#2 ... Remember when the Reps wouldn't let up on Obama and kept looking for some imaginary smoking gun ...

Yup, I remember that well.

However, I see no correlation of that with this thread, so you may need to explain yourself a bit more.

thx.

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-04-27 10:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort