• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Supreme Court May 12th oral arguments on Trump's taxes (10AM ET)

Sho_Nuff82

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413


Reminder: The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments today on whether Trump can block the release of his financial records.

The court will consider two sets of cases, with one scheduled to start at 10 a.m. ET and the second an hour later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Three of the bigger cases on this year's docket determine if the president (and his businesses) are immune from state and Congressional oversight. All begin arguments today.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP | Constitutional Accountability Center

www.theusconstitution.org www.theusconstitution.org

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, the Supreme Court is considering whether the House Oversight Committee can subpoena documents related to President Trump's and his businesses' finances from Mazars USA, LLP, a financial accounting firm.

www.theusconstitution.org

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG & Capital One | Constitutional Accountability Center

www.theusconstitution.org www.theusconstitution.org

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG & Capital One
In Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG & Capital One, the Supreme Court is considering whether the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee can subpoena documents related to President Trump's, his family's, and his businesses' finances.

www.theusconstitution.org

Trump v. Vance | Constitutional Accountability Center

www.theusconstitution.org www.theusconstitution.org

Trump v. Vance
In Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court is considering whether presidential immunity can prevent an accounting firm from complying with a state grand-jury subpoena for the President's personal, financial records.

Edit:
CNN livestream for Trump vs Mazars/Trump v Deutsche (10AM): https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1

The Trump v Vance arguments start at 11AM on the same link.
 
Last edited:
Kcoe27400

Kcoe27400

Member
Mar 14, 2018
932
Obviously its a Conservative supreme court with 2 trump appointed people but is there any indication how everyone is leaning in these cases.
 
Speevy

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,326
They're like no, no, no. I mean yes, yes on that third one.

That was close. Whew, let's go to lunch.
 
Casa

Casa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,501
Expecting the right wing hack justices to contort themselves in pretzels to rule in Trump's favor, but I'm extremely curious how they're going to justify making the POTUS a king who is above the law. What possible argument can they make to say it's okay that the president can simply say no to any oversight?
 
OP
OP
Sho_Nuff82

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413
The only way I could see the court ruling in Trump's favor without completely destroying future oversight is if they narrowly ruled his personal finances as immune to subpoena (while in office) and offered no such protections to the Trump Org and his family.

A blanket dismissal in all 3 cases would mean that the president's company could do literally anything and not even be investigated, let alone prosecuted.
 
OP
OP
Sho_Nuff82

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413
Casa said:
Expecting the right wing hack justices to contort themselves in pretzels to rule in Trump's favor, but I'm extremely curious how they're going to justify making the POTUS a king who is above the law. What possible argument can they make to say it's okay that the president can simply say no to any oversight?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Kav and Thomas are going to go ham this week no matter which way the overall court rules, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear some straight up outlandish justifications for a supreme executive branch. Especially from Thomas.

I'd also expect Thomas to flat out ignore the arguments made by the DoJ themselves in defending Trump from subpoena.
 
sonder

sonder

Banned
Mar 18, 2020
298
Will easily be a dismissal. We're going 1000mph back to the days of Lochner and Plessy. Roberts wants a legacy so bad but he'll end up like Chief Fuller in the end.
 
8byte

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
My expectations are pretty low for justice at the moment.
 
thuway

thuway

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,168
The only way to get Trump is via the ballot. This court has been compromised. Let's win the senate and expand the court.
 
Chaos Legion

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,912
Roberts rules in favor of the House Oversight powers and against presidential immunity.

The case for his family's records is a little overreach, so I see that ruling being the only one in Trump's favor.
 
Speevy

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,326
I don't follow these decisions. Do they ever go another way except down party lines?
 
OP
OP
Sho_Nuff82

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413
Chaos Legion said:
Roberts rules in favor of the House Oversight powers and against presidential immunity.

The case for his family's records is a little overreach, so I see that ruling being the only one in Trump's favor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But the House Ways & Means can literally ask for any American citizen's taxes at any time. Why would being related to the president offer you immunity, particularly if you don't work in the executive branch? And how far removed from the president would that blood immunity extend?
 
skeptem

skeptem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,745
Sho_Nuff82 said:
But the House Ways & Means can literally ask for any American citizen's taxes at any time. Why would being related to the president offer you immunity, particularly if you don't work in the executive branch? And how far removed from the president would that blood immunity extend?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It interferes with the presidents work/responsibilities. You can extend that argument ad infinutum.
 
DrROBschiz

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,477
Oh gee golly I wonder how they will rule

Im not gonna hold my breath for good news these day but it would be welcome
 

Deleted member 11985

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,168
Three cases to determine Congressional oversight? That's a veritable devil's triangle if I've ever seen one.

But I think we already all know how these decisions are going to go, as depressing as it is.
 
Xyer

Xyer

Avenger
Aug 26, 2018
7,327
Not expecting anything. Laws don't matter anymore unless you're poor and powerless.
 
Chaos Legion

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,912
Sho_Nuff82 said:
But the House Ways & Means can literally ask for any American citizen's taxes at any time. Why would being related to the president offer you immunity, particularly if you don't work in the executive branch? And how far removed from the president would that blood immunity extend?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not saying I disagree, I just think that case has such a broad scope it's the easiest one to rule against Congress. I was reading the dissenting argument and I can see Roberts being persuaded.

 
OP
OP
Sho_Nuff82

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413
skeptem said:
It interferes with the presidents work/responsibilities. You can extend that argument ad infinutum.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Trump is supposed to divest from his businesses (he didn't) or place them in a blind trust (he didn't), but even then Eric and Don Jr and one of his senior admins officially run the Trump Org now, not Donald himself.

There's no argument to be made that complying with a subpoena would interfere with his daily duties of being president.
 

Zelas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,020
Lawfare has a good write up of everyone's arguments. One of Trump's and the Justice Department's arguments used against multiple subpoenas is that it would be wrong to give Congress unprecedented power. Completely ignoring that disallowing the subpoenas would give the presidency unprecedented powers. It's comical.

www.lawfareblog.com

Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview: Trump Financial Documents Cases

The outcome of these three cases could have significant implications for congressional power, the Trump family’s business dealings and the transparency of the president’s reelection campaign.
www.lawfareblog.com www.lawfareblog.com

From what I can see, not one court up to the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor on the merits. They are so wrong but alas, SC gonna SC.
 
skeptem

skeptem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,745
Zelas said:
Lawfare has a good write up of everyone's arguments. One of Trump's and the Justice Department's arguments used against multiple subpoenas is that it would be wrong to give Congress unprecedented power. Completely ignoring that disallowing the subpoenas would give the presidency unprecedented powers. It's comical.

www.lawfareblog.com

Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview: Trump Financial Documents Cases

The outcome of these three cases could have significant implications for congressional power, the Trump family’s business dealings and the transparency of the president’s reelection campaign.
www.lawfareblog.com www.lawfareblog.com

From what I can see, not one court up to the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor on the merits. They are so wrong but alas, SC gonna SC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
' He [Trump] begins by outlining the absence of historical support for legislative subpoenas for the personal records of sitting presidents, which, he suggests, indicates that something is "amiss." "

giphy.gif
 

Zelas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,020
skeptem said:
' He [Trump] begins by outlining the absence of historical support for legislative subpoenas for the personal records of sitting presidents, which, he suggests, indicates that something is "amiss." "

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
UNPRECEDENTED!

I think I'll listen in just to see their lawyers choke all over their words when they're pushed, forcing one of the conservatives justices to do the verbal equivalent of holding up cue cards again.
 
BadAss2961

BadAss2961

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,069
About 90% sure the majority will protect him.

And since Trump has no leg to stand on here, this case will let us know for sure if the SC is compromised.
 
jelly

jelly

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
33,841
So if they make him King, all future Presidents can do what they like too with no oversight?
 
Silver-Streak

Silver-Streak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,007
I actually wonder if, rather than ruling on it, they just decide to let the lower court's opinion stand, since so many of them have ruled unanimously the same way.
 
Trey

Trey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,963
Zelas said:
Lawfare has a good write up of everyone's arguments. One of Trump's and the Justice Department's arguments used against multiple subpoenas is that it would be wrong to give Congress unprecedented power. Completely ignoring that disallowing the subpoenas would give the presidency unprecedented powers. It's comical.

www.lawfareblog.com

Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview: Trump Financial Documents Cases

The outcome of these three cases could have significant implications for congressional power, the Trump family’s business dealings and the transparency of the president’s reelection campaign.
www.lawfareblog.com www.lawfareblog.com

From what I can see, not one court up to the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor on the merits. They are so wrong but alas, SC gonna SC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Unprecedented powers of...doing exactly what is bestowed to them by the US Constitution.
 
alr1ght

alr1ght

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,047
THE MOST TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

These judges are what you're voting for in November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.