Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, July 11, 2020

Kimberly Wehle: In the immediate aftermath of Thursday's Supreme Court rulings on who has the right to access the president's financial records, numerous commentators cast the decisions as a "split" that gave prosecutors a clear win but thwarted Congress's ability to obtain Trump's financial records. But while Trump might have won a short-term political battle by effectively managing to keep his records hidden until after the November election, there should be no confusion about who won on Thursday.

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.

Patience Grasshoppers.

Rome wasn't burned down in one day.

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-11 01:18 PM | Reply

"Investigating me for tax evasion is a hoax and a witch hunt. It doesn't matter that I've never paid taxes and use loopholes for real estate developers. Whatabout those e-mails, whatabout Benghazi, whatabout BLM!"

-President ------

#2 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2020-07-11 01:34 PM | Reply

I do have to agree with the ones who are disappointed. It is tough to have the patience needed to defeat Trumpism. It's roots go deep now.

It is a Pyrrhic victory. It's just too bad so many Americans have had to die before we can remove this cancerous corruption to our country.

Justice delayed is justice denied. (See Roger Stone for details)

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-11 02:34 PM | Reply

Many legal analysts, including the SCOTUS blog, disagree with this analysis and conclude that the Mazars ruling made things murkier by establishing a vague four part test for the lower courts to try to apply on Congressional Subpoenas:

"Today's Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Mazars establishes a vague and unwieldy four-part test for determining when congressional committees can subpoena documents from the president. The court understandably and rightly rejected both the president's extreme view that such subpoenas are almost never enforceable and the House of Representatives' position that the subpoena power is virtually unlimited. To avoid these extremes, the court created a complex four-part balancing test. But it would have done better to adopt a much clearer and simpler rule: that Congress can only subpoena information related to issues over which it has legislative authority.

During oral argument, House of Representatives lawyer Douglas Letter repeatedly failed to identify any limits to Congress' powers to subpoena the president's records. Commentators such as Michael Dorf and Jonathan Adler argued that this was a serious error.

In his majority opinion for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizes that "the House's approach aggravates [separation of powers concerns] by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President's personal records" and notes that "at argument, the House was unable to identify any type of information that lacks some relation to potential legislation."

Instead, the court creates a four-part test for determining when Congress can subpoena information from the president. The four parts are vague in themselves, and the court offers no guidance on what to do if some of the four factors cut one way, while others support the other side. In addition, the test is not actually exhaustive. The court warns that other, unspecified considerations may also have to be weighed."

SCOTUSblog: A better way to limit Congress' subpoena power

#4 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-07-11 03:03 PM | Reply

"Four part test" is nowhere in the Constitution.

It's all been fabricated from whole cloth. Navel gazing of the highest order.

It's become a system that works against the very thing it was set out to achieve; namely, a system of checks and balances between three co-equal branches of government.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-11 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

C0-equal, but Article One powers should be a bit more equal than the other two. There is a reason the first Article established the Legislative Branch and its powers. This is the Branch of government that is nearest to the people with direct representation. They must have oversight authority.

#6 | Posted by Jasper at 2020-07-12 08:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re 6.

The three branches of government should be co-equal and work together.

They are designed to work together. They are not adversaries no matter how much Trumpy has tried to make them enemies of each other.

Also.

We the People are not enemies of each other. As Trumpy has also tried to make us.

The Trumpy admin is a total failure as expected from a moron who does not even know American history or the basic purpose of a government Of the People by the People for the People.

We are supposed to be making a more perfect union.

Not a more divided union.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-12 10:56 AM | Reply

Exactly!

If the framers thought that the Executive was to be as powerful as today's Republicans want it to be, his powers would have been laid out in Article One of the Constitution. The fact that the "People's House" is responsible for the purse strings is indicative of that intent, and that alone justifies oversight of the Executive Branch.

#8 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-12 10:57 AM | Reply

That was re: #6

#9 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-12 10:58 AM | 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