My guess is the SCOTUS will rule for Trump

[edhopper]

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2019, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

they could just let the lower courts ruling stand on turning over his taxes.
Precedent says he cannot legally deny Congress.
So I predict they took this up so they can give him a big win right before the election.
Why would anyone trust any of the conservatives to vote against him?

For those who hope for the Court to do the right thing..
The overturned the Voting Rights Act and let polical tgerrymandering stand.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I'm wondering if any of the justices are willing to be seen as political!

I would hope that that would give them pause.

[jcgoldie]

2. holding out hope that at least Roberts doesn't

... the douchebags like Thomas and Kavanaugh don't care.

[edhopper]

9. That ship sailed

with Gore v Bush

[scheming daemons]

3. No... there are three different cases they are hearing, and I think it will be a mixed ruling

The one involving Mazars, will be upheld - meaning Mazars will have to turn over the tax returns.

The one involving the US House will be denied - meaning that the congress doesn't have the right to investigate unless for a "legislative purpose".

The one involving Deutche Bank.... that's up in the air.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. On what legal authority do you base that conclusion?

All of the case law supports disclosure of the documents, including US v. Nixon, which was a unanimous decision of a Supreme Court that included three Nixon appointees, Burger, Blackmun, and Powell (Rehnquist recused himself because he had worked as a White House counsel for Nixon). Roberts isn't going to want to be remembered as the Chief Justice of a supreme court that ignored decades of precedent, and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch (who aren't obligated to do Trump's bidding because they have lifetime appointments) are constitutional originalists - meaning they aren't likely to ignore the Constitution's very clear words about the three separate and equal branches of government. Even if the court splits, Roberts is likely to be the swing vote in favor of disclosure. The reason the court decided to hear the cases is because there are actually three cases, decided by different judges, addressing the issue of whether the president can object to the disclosure of records under subpoena by a DA and/or by Congress directed to a third party. It makes sense that they would want to resolve the issue.

[kairos12]

5. After Bush V. Gore SCOTUS was finished.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Actually, no.

The Supreme Court’s 67 opinions are in: Call it the crossover term.

Liberal justices prevailed more often in closely divided cases than did conservatives. The 10-7 count was partly due to every Republican appointee breaking ranks at least once in 5-4 or 5-3 cases.

These results come despite anticipation that the fortified conservative majority with the addition of Brett Kavanaugh immediately would push the court sharply to the right.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/scotus-by-the-numbers-liberals-score-in-more-close-cases

and "...the Roberts Court thus far appears to have decided cases fairly neutrally with respect to ideological direction. Although on the balance the court’s decisions appear to slightly favor conservative over liberal outcomes, this trend appears to have diminished in recent terms." https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/empirical-scotus-is-the-court-tracking-right-or-roberts-left/

[kairos12]

10. You are relying on court history and precedent. Looking backward to predict what they will do.

In the past major decisions like campaign finance reform and gun decisions SCOTUS broke huge precedents and protected conversative positions. I suppose the outlier would be Roberts and Obamacare. However, I will defer to your optimism and hope for the best.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. The Bloomberglaw article refers to the most recent term,

since the appointments of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. So far the court hasn't moved any further to the right than it was before they were appointed.

[edhopper]

12. I have no faith this Court will follow precedent

After Citizen's United and the Voting Rights Act, I don't think they will rule against Trum.

And yes, Gore v Bush as well.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Had they let the lower court cases stand, the issue would not ba e been settled

and Trump could go into a quart anywhere else in the country and push the same bogus arguments.

In this situation, it makes sense for the Supreme Court to take the case to resolve it once and for all for the entire federal judiciary.

I believe it was Professor Tribe who also made important point that the Court usually takes cases like this involving the president because the issues involved shouldn't be left to the lower courts to resolve

[BigDemVoter]

7. I bet those fuckers will.

I have NO faith in ANYBODY who's a repig. . . . Not ONE. . . .

[bluestarone]

11. Disagree

They could have done that now with no comment

[edhopper]

13. The lower courts ruled against Trump

how could they overturn that with out the liberal Justices agreeing?

[bluestarone]

15. You're right, i'm confused.

BUT i feel the SC will rule AGAINST tRUMP in June.

[edhopper]

16. we can only speculate

I am feeling pessimistic these days.

[bluestarone]

17. I hear ya

I just CANNOT imagine the SC ruling against the congress just can't!

[edhopper]

18. like overturning

The Voting Rights Act that Congress passed?

[bluestarone]

19. you got me there

But still have faith here. Edit to add that NO matter what happens in the senate, tRUMP is impeached FOREVER in my eyes!! THAT is AWESOME! I thank all my DEM. House members for that!

[edhopper]

20. they also allowed

For gerrymandering.

I don't see where they uphold the Constitution.

[bluestarone]

21. Tough road ahead for sure!

But you know what? I'M up to it!

[StarfishSaver]

22. Overturning a section of a law that Congress passed is not the same as

ruling that Congress is subordinate to the executive branch.

As much as I disagree with what the Court did in Shelby (it was a disaster), it didn't mess with Congress' Article One authorities or standing, but interpreted a law and ruled that Congress did not lay the groundwork necessary to ensure that section of the law passed constitutional muster.
Congress can actually fairly easily overcome the Supreme Court's ruling - unfortunately, Congressional Republicans are refusing to do that.

This is very, very different.