General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Supreme Court Could Decide if the President Is Above the Law
snip
In other words, if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, it would be a sign that the high court is willing to consider the idea that a sitting president isnt simply immune from prosecution, but from even being investigated. That is why Litman recommends that they reject the case, because it would simply validate Trumps extreme view that the president is above the law.
If the justices let the decision of the appeals court stand, the presidents tax returns would be made public very shortly. Paul Waldman summarized the questions that might be answered.
Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, agrees that what the returns reveal will be scandalous. Tax avoidance? Definitely. Tax evasion? Probably. Partnerships with shady characters, even criminals? No one will be surprised.
If the justices agree to hear the case, all bets are off and the Supreme Court could be on the verge of one of the most monumental decisions in the courts history. As the legislative branch becomes engaged in the question of whether to impeach the president and remove him from office, the judicial branch could be on track to rule whether he is above the law.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/11/05/the-supreme-court-could-decide-if-the-president-is-above-the-law/
Will they reject? We will know soon who the traitors on the SCOTUS are. Will they stake their reputations and their legacy to support trump?
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)leftieNanner
(15,132 posts)will vote to hear the case. Gorsuch and Roberts may surprise us. They're not COMPLETELY partisan idiots.
But it should never get that far. From what I understand, the decision from the Appeals Court was very clear and convincing.
Girard442
(6,081 posts)Sadly, my money is on a flat edict with a Scalia under-the-chin gesture.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)I have no faith in this nation's institutions right now.
wryter2000
(46,051 posts)That makes the most sense to me. Some of them may be dying to declare the President a king, but I imagine most of them want no part of it. Even if they did hear it, it could be decided on the very narrow grounds the appeals court based its decision on.
sheshe2
(83,801 posts)The will reject and The Con will go ballistic!
bitterross
(4,066 posts)If they take the case, I hope Roberts has the good sense to realize he'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the founders would want. SCOTUS would be, in effect, elevating the President to the status of a monarch. Untouchable.
leftieNanner
(15,132 posts)That we are hanging our hopes on Roberts' consideration of his own legacy as opposed to his consideration of our country.
Perhaps, just perhaps he has a touch of humanity as well.
These days, I just don't know anymore.
leftieNanner
(15,132 posts)So there's that.
sheshe2
(83,801 posts)And that was a shocker. Sure shocked the GOPeees.
leftieNanner
(15,132 posts)Before Medicare kicked in. My husband was laid off his job and for a complicated bunch of reasons, he ended up starting up a small consulting business - self employed with zero benefits. At our ages, it would have been very dangerous to go without insurance. He had had a heart attack in 2009, so he would be completely unable to get health insurance from any provider.
Luckily, the ACA came along, and although it wasn't cheap, we were able to get coverage. Now we're on Geezer care. All is good. So, for that, thank you John Roberts.
sheshe2
(83,801 posts)I lost my job. Cobra would have bankrupted me. I am low income and paid little for coverage that gave me peace of mind. I was unable to find a job...to old and in the way. Medicare kicked in a year and a half later.
Glad you and your husband found the coverage you needed, Nanner. ACA needs to be built on.
bluestarone
(16,988 posts)If they rule for tRUMP our United States id fucked! End of story!
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Doesn't indicate that a President if above the law.
Precisely the opposite. Accepting the case is a function OF the law. Acceptance indicates a willingness on the part of the court to issue a legal ruling regarding the President. That's not above the law, that's engaged in the law as much as the court could be.
The reality is, that the SC rarely declines to hear a case where the President is directly involved. In fact I can't think of a single instance. It's checks and balances at the very very highest level.
It's the outcome that matters and that's a way down the road.
FWIW, I don't believe it'll be a monumental case. They will probably rule he has to turn them over (ala Nixon), and then we'll have something else to talk about for awhile as we learn what the IRS has on him.
leftieNanner
(15,132 posts)But if SCOTUS decides that Mazar's has to turn over the records to Vance, I don't know how much we might actually learn about them. But we shall see. Doubt they will be public documents right away. Does Donnie have any further nonsense up his (ill-fitting) sleeves to try to block this stuff any further?
I've been using this smilie so much lately, I think I have a headache!
mopinko
(70,141 posts)this wont be the one.
there is a shitstorm of cases coming down the pike, and i dont see them taking one of these idiotic gonzo claims.
a real issue that needs to be decided, they likely take. but letting these idiots think they have a key to the sc door?
methinks roberts is too smart to get played by these morons.
budkin
(6,703 posts)And I'm sad to say that it's going to pay off for him. I have no faith in these "strict constitutionists."
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)And in the future, when a similar situation is brought before them regarding a Democratic president, they would decide it's high time to reconsider the previous decision.