One of the best things anyone can do in America is get everyone to vote.
Absolutely! That’s about as American as it gets.
Re: I guess this is political...
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:41 am
by 3rdside
Trump tax return decision day in the Supreme Court.. call me a conspiracist - although I don’t firmly believe this - but I feel like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh splitting decisions recently is a distraction in the bigger picture of today’s decision.
They were both installed under shady premises and it’s pay back time.
Re: I guess this is political...
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:42 am
by ShelC
Won't happen.
Re: I guess this is political...
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:39 am
by AmareIsGod
Video unavailable
This video is private.
Re: I guess this is political...
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:18 am
by Nodack
Both of Trumps Supreme Court picks voted against him twice already. Trump must be furious.
So SCOTUS decided in one case that the New York DA is allowed to see Trump's financial documents, and that Congress can continue to ask for it but must do so in a lower court. So that'll probably gum things up until after the election, which is probably all Trump needed in the first place.
Re: I guess this is political...
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:00 am
by ShelC
Yea glad to see SC said no one is above the law despite what Trump thinks/wants. If anything the President should be held to a higher standard. But the documents won't be seen anytime soon either way.
Re: I guess this is political...
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:37 pm
by Nodack
Both Trump Supreme Court picks voted against Trump.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is conducting a probe into the Trump Organization’s efforts to mask hush money paid to two women who said they had sexual encounters with Trump. The D.A. wants to explore whether, as part of those maneuvers, Trump’s team falsified business records. Trump’s lawyers argued that prosecutors like Vance should have to meet a heightened standard when seeking any president’s personal papers. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed, citing previous rulings involving former presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Trump’s argument “runs up against the 200 years of precedent establishing that Presidents, and their official communications, are subject to judicial process,” Roberts, an institutionalist devoted to the power of legal precedent, wrote. He dismissed the idea that Vance’s subpoenas stigmatized Trump, undermined his leadership, or amounted to unnecessary “harassment” (or “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” as Trump has described it in tweets).
In short, Roberts wrote, adopting the language from an 1807 Supreme Court ruling involving Aaron Burr and President Thomas Jefferson, every president’s legal standing is in “nearly the same situation with any other individual.”
Bravo. This opinion will echo well beyond Trump’s presidency. It is a victory for the rule of the law at a time when it has been under withering attack, in words and actions, from the executive branch.