Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Recommended Posts

On 7/9/2020 at 10:19 AM, Rdskns2000 said:

Supreme Court says Manhattan district attorney can get Trump tax records  

 

>>

The Supreme Court on Thursday voted 7-2 against President Donald Trump in a case over whether he could shield his tax records from the Manhattan district attorney.

The New York case stemmed from an investigation being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. Vance issued a subpoena to Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, for a wide variety of Trump’s personal and business records, including tax returns, dating back to 2011. <<

 

Trump Must Hand Over Tax Returns to Manhattan DA Vance, Judge Rules (Again)

 

A federal judge on Thursday rejected President Trump’s second attempt to block the Manhattan district attorney from obtaining years of his tax returns as part of an ongoing probe. Judge Victor Marrero—who originally presided over the case and denied the president’s efforts to block District Attorney Cyrus Vance from subpoenaing eight years of tax returns—upheld Vance’s subpoena and dismissed Trump’s attempt to once again block Vance. Last August, Vance’s office issued a subpoena to Mazars, the president’s accounting firm, as part of the investigation into hush-money payments allegedly made to several women before the 2016 election.

 

In his Thursday ruling, Marrero wrote that he could not “mechanically credit” the president’s arguments that the subpoena was “wildly over-broad” was “unduly burdensome and motivated by bad faith.” The judge then compared the president’s argument to an attempt to get “absolute immunity through a back door.” Marrero dismissed with prejudice, effectively preventing Trump from bringing new arguments against the subpoena to the court. The latest blow to Trump’s legal team also comes after a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court in July, siding with Vance in the belief that Trump should not get absolute immunity as a sitting president. But they sent the case back to the lower courts for a final decision on the specific subpoena issue.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

most of the main tenets of the article are familiar already but it's lays out context and details with cohesions and does add some stuff--i'm quoting just one thing i alluded to weeks ago that about lower courts too but it fits fine here as an addendum...and i do recommend reading the whole piece

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-supreme-court-gambit-may-backfire-heres-how/ar-BB19nqAS?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Republicans’ Supreme Court gambit may backfire. Here’s how.

 

Quote

 

Constitutional hardball could become the name of the game. Constitutional hardball refers to manipulating lawmaking procedures or norms to advantage one’s own party, particularly in the judiciary or electorate. Leveraging their power in the Senate, which overrepresents Republicans’ rural constituencies, congressional Republicans have played hardball more aggressively and consistently than have Democrats.

 

If Republicans confirm a justice before January, Democratic House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) recently tweeted he would introduce a bill to expand the Supreme Court. Congress further has the power to reorganize the lower circuit courts that Trump, supported by the Republican Senate, stacked with conservatives. Whether Biden would sign such a bill is unclear.

 

Throughout U.S. history, Congress has also passed statutes and amendments to curtail the sorts of cases federal courts can consider. For example, the first amendment passed after the Bill of Rights directly reversed a Supreme Court decision and curtailed court jurisdiction over suits against the states.

 

The Constitution also lets Congress impeach Supreme Court justices for poor conduct, although traditionally that’s only done for overt corruption, not for partisan views. Harder to pass and ratify would be a constitutional amendment to limit justices to 18-year terms, perhaps appointed at regular intervals so as to prevent any one president from accidentally being able to stack the court.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, visionary said:
 

 

I like this idea, but I still want the Dems to expand the court. I don't want them to set term limits if that is all they're going to do, no half assing it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

I like this idea, but I still want the Dems to expand the court. I don't want them to set term limits if that is all they're going to do, no half assing it.

Quote

Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.

 

The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

 

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

Quote

Some legal observers, including those who favor term limits, say they must be accomplished through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been interpreted as requiring life tenure for federal judges and justices.

 

The bill seeks to avoid constitutional concerns by exempting current justices from the 18-year rule. Those appointed under term limits would become “senior” upon retirement and rotate to lower courts.

 

“That’s perfectly consistent with their judicial independence and having a lifetime salary and a lifetime appointment,” Khanna said.

 

 

Interesting to see Khanna's involvement, as he's a pretty popular on the left.

Edited by visionary
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

I like this idea, but I still want the Dems to expand the court. I don't want them to set term limits if that is all they're going to do, no half assing it.


Well if the term limits are effective immediately, Biden would get to replace Thomas and Breyer immediately (back to 5-4) and then replace Roberts and Alito if he wins a second term (6-3 liberals). It’s actually a brilliant way for them to stack the court without going to the extremes of expanding the court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skinsfan_1215 said:


Well if the term limits are effective immediately, Biden would get to replace Thomas and Breyer immediately (back to 5-4) and then replace Roberts and Alito if he wins a second term (6-3 liberals). It’s actually a brilliant way for them to stack the court without going to the extremes of expanding the court. 

Read on...lol.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The term limits. My understanding is the way it is written in the constitution is that you will serve as long as you are in good standing. So adding term limits would require 2/3 the states to ratify it. Do not see that happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just654 said:

The term limits. My understanding is the way it is written in the constitution is that you will serve as long as you are in good standing. So adding term limits would require 2/3 the states to ratify it. Do not see that happening.

 

The work around being discussed is that Constitution guarantees life time tenure for Federal judges but do not specify at which level.  So you could say an appointment as a federal judge is for life, but your term at SCOTUS is set at "X" years and then you're assigned to a circuit court or to a district court.  Such change would only require a legislative change, not a constitutional amendment.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

The work around being discussed is that Constitution guarantees life time tenure for Federal judges but do not specify at which level.  So you could say an appointment as a federal judge is for life, but your term at SCOTUS is set at "X" years and then you're assigned to a circuit court or to a district court.  Such change would only require a legislative change, not a constitutional amendment.


yeah I smell a lawsuit that will end up at SCOTUS. And just like Congress will never vote for term limits they will do the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The voting rights issue, if brought back to the Supreme Court would be a slam dunk case in favor of re-installing the acts if the Supreme Court was actually interested in using the facts on the ground as a basis for their ruling.  When it came up before the big argument from conservatives was basically "America isn't racist anymore so while the rights of voters are important, we don't need this act to protect them" and of course on cue as soon as it was thrown off the law books, the states went to work suppressing the vote in ways they couldn't get away with in court before.   All lawyers should have to do is say "Well, we told you so?" and it should be overturned.....but yeah.....ugh. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...