General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums10AM ET Judicial Hearing before DC Appeals Court as referenced by TRMS: **Listen HERE**
I've spent an hour trying to find links and CSPAN only shows that they are playing it on CSPAN-2 at 8 PM so unless that is a typo, don't go there to hear it live.HERE IS THE DIRECT LINK TO NBC AUDIO LIVE STREAM (10AM ET):
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/listen-live-second-circuit-court-of-appeals-hears-trump-financial-records-case-71857733878
Here is the accompanying news article on this case with wide-reaching implications:
Appeals court to hear showdown over Trump taxes
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the case on a fast track, and lawyers for both sides have agreed to seek immediate review from the Supreme Court.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/appeals-court-hear-showdown-over-trump-taxes-n1070231
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)CousinIT
(9,256 posts)I think this is going nowhere fast. I hope I'm wrong. GOP slammed those rapists & squatters (Gorsuch) onto that court to protect corrupt Republicans and that's what they'll do.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)If you read the original ruling it is clear the Trump attorneys really overreached with all that Unitary Executive Bullshit stating the President can not even be investigated, much less held to account in any manner. That level of overreach infuriated the original judge and I believe will likewise with Roberts. Less likely with Gorsuch as his libertarian leanings will make him sympathetic to Trump's hiding financial records, but even he is somewhat sensitive to such 'overreach' and the need for checks and balances. Roberts is the real hope here, but a minimal chance of convincing one other.
certainot
(9,090 posts)degree can feel the howling coming from RW media. and limbaugh and sons have had a huge effect getting clarence thomas and kavenaugh on that court by attacking their critics and accusers.
in this case the con supremes have felt the general pro-trump screaming but if it happens quickly limbaugh might not be able to get it going for this in time.
and con supremes like roberts might also get republican pressure to make an easy decision on something like this to make it easier to get rid of him. take a lot of pressure of republican senators. it might have been different a few months ago.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)certainly. One need only look to Robert's dissent on ACA to realize it is not black and white no matter our rightful disdain for the conservative wing of the court.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)rules against Trump.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)relationship.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,829 posts)is to ensure that they will be relatively immune to public pressure. They can't be fired, even by the president who appointed them and only one justice has ever been impeached, and he was acquitted (a few lower federal court judges have been impeached and removed, but those cases involved crimes of corruption, usually bribery). I have no doubt that they are as aware of politics and public opinion as anyone else, but their decisions are influenced by their ideology, not public pressure. Since the conservative wing tend to be originalists like Scalia (Roberts seems to be a little more flexible), that view of the Constitution would probably make them more likely to rule against Trump, not less.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh don't have to make Trump happy. He can't fire them - although if they rule against him he'll probably try.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The Republican's attempt over the last fifty years beginning with Nixon to transformed the Presidency into a virtual dictatorship along with other abuses of power, including the nonsense that a president can not be indicted, must be corrected by legislation. I am confident that if passed the Republicans will appeal to the Supreme Court. This is another issue that should be addressed: life time appointments. The Founding Fathers were honorable men and naively assumed that only men of sterling character would by appointed and believed that life time appointments would insulate the court from politics. Unfortunately, every decision is becoming highly influenced from which that they attempted to shield it. The fact is that their gross partisanship has been enabled to abuse their power since they can not be recalled except through the arduous impeachment process which again is controlled by party affiliation.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)RW attempts to bastardize it.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)That is I am convinced that legislation that directly makes any attempt to provide the presidency with authoritarian powers that would jeopardize the clear intent of the Founding Fathers system of checks and balances of the three distinct branches of government must be clearly defined and made illegal. The silencing of the free press, which is also assured by the constitution and which is under assault should also be addressed as it is paramount for operation of a democracy.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)they refuse to hear the case and let appellate decision stand. Otherwise we are definitely a banana republic.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)It seems rather amazing to me that several Duers accuse the likes of Neal Kayal, Laurence Tribe, Bruce Ackerman, even John Dean of being "naive" for those opinions. Why, exactly these noted scholars are not more knowledgeable, rather than "naive", in contrast to even the most "in-tune" political follower escapes me.
Texin
(2,597 posts)Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)Will add to my thread as well
TruckFump
(5,812 posts)2naSalit
(86,765 posts)Thanx for posting!
MontanaMama
(23,337 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)Good morning...The Con v Cyrus A Vance
steventh
(2,143 posts)nt
Mersky
(4,986 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)Nervous as hell as one would expect when one can't provide answers to support ones case.
Judicial panel is not going to let anything slide.
catbyte
(34,433 posts)Dang!
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)Make sure you don't have a pop-up blocker activated too. Try another browser?
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)eShirl
(18,502 posts)listening there now...
dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)Takket
(21,616 posts)Is this the one where Dems in House requested the taxes and the law says treasury shall provide them and Mnuchin refused?
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)solara
(3,836 posts)dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)Mike 03
(16,616 posts)for the DA.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)He is arguing, basically, tax returns are audited all the time, doesn't matter if you're the president or not. Yes, the president might find it sensitive or embarrassing. The president's counsel is making up their defense... it is a defense that doesn't actually exist.
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)HERE:The appeals judges for Wednesday's hearing are Denny Chin, Robert Katzmann and Christopher Droney. All three were appointed to the federal bench by Democratic presidents. (CNN)
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York is hearing the case on a fast track, and lawyers for both sides have agreed to seek immediate review from the Supreme Court.
malaise
(269,157 posts)of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/21/manhattan-da-vance-trump-agree-to-further-delay-in-enforcement-of-grand-jury-subpoena/?slreturn=20190923103803
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/trump-tax-return-appeal/index.html
Full court - http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.html
(6 D + 5 R + 2 vacancies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit)
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)Have been listening for the past 20 minutes or so...
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)TruckFump
(5,812 posts)Wow...I hope so!!!!
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)Mike 03
(16,616 posts)Will the Court decide this today?
TruckFump
(5,812 posts)Glad we have a link to listen.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)Court audio isn't always the best.
TruckFump
(5,812 posts)Yes, excellent audio.
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)Oral argument is clearly over and the only thing they could possibly come back to court for would be a ruling. i understand the case is on an 'expedited" track, but does that mean an immediate ruling? I have never heard of that before
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)I'm no expert but usually a recess at the end of an argument means there will be a ruling, but I don't know if that's always the case.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)The Judge taking a break before hearing another case?
Hmm...
EDIT: Live stream on Cspan is over. Guess that's it for today.
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)They must have been recessing before hearing arguments on other cases, not a recess in the case they just heard. It is the only thing that makes sense.
pecosbob
(7,542 posts)Keep on digging Rs.
solara
(3,836 posts)seems like its been longer than 10 minutes
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)solara
(3,836 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)the stream is over. Someone said the cspan stream had ended. So...
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)(when they are not actively covering Congress) and will put on some other programming with the expectation to resume if what they were originally covering, returns.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)Adam Klasfeld's twitter stream
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)(i.e., they haven't cut it off)
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)but then resumed with the silent feed.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)Have it in a separate window minimized and check it every once in awhile.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)so will keep an eye out if they do.
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)So they are done for now.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)because there has been so much silence that the booth folks are doing a sound check with what is known as "the tone". I wish they'd get back in session. I wonder why the ten minute recess is now going into 30 minutes.
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)and know it could either get a request for an "en banc" decision and/or go to the SCOTUS, they may be writing up a bit more as their reasoning for their decision (with citations) knowing it will be appealed.
Otherwise maybe a lunch break too.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)I hope they make a good enough argument that SCOTUS refuse to grant certiorari.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The comments are really interesting, insightful and thought-provoking.
My takeaways -
1. The judges were extraordinarily skeptical of the Trump lawyers' arguments and are likely to rule in favor of the state of New York.
2. The judges are also certain the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Let's hope this prompts them to write a very compelling opinion that covers all the bases.
3. If the appellate court's opinion is strong enough, the Supreme Court might actually deny cert and let the case stand rather than diving into the middle of this controversy.
4. I can't imagine five justices - or even one or two - accepting Trump's argument.
5. The state has made it difficult for the Trump team to drag this out.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)2naSalit
(86,765 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)2naSalit
(86,765 posts)the justices are watching the news.