- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:17 am to udtiger
frick Roberts
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:17 am to TigerDoc
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It is legally the right decision. All the reasons have been explained here for months.
But there will be great gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing on TDPT.
Well gee, your opinion is a fricking shocker
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:17 am to udtiger
quote:
Roberts writes the opinion in the ultimate frick YOU to Trump.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined him, filing a concurring opinion. A grand jury does have the right to see his business documents and a 7-2 decision affirms that.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:17 am to jatilen
quote:
"The arguments here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case may be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate."
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to wickowick
Don't sweat it. This isn't over.
Remember...Trump objected to this subpoena purely on "supremacy" grounds. He did not object to the subpoena on its "merits" (which any party [or affected non-party] can do).
This will go back to the lower court, where his lawyers will object to the subpoena and seek a protective order as a "backstop" (a real one that will get crushing non-dischargeable economic sanctions and jailtime for anyone who divulges or leaks it).
It will never have wound its way through the courts by the election.
Remember...Trump objected to this subpoena purely on "supremacy" grounds. He did not object to the subpoena on its "merits" (which any party [or affected non-party] can do).
This will go back to the lower court, where his lawyers will object to the subpoena and seek a protective order as a "backstop" (a real one that will get crushing non-dischargeable economic sanctions and jailtime for anyone who divulges or leaks it).
It will never have wound its way through the courts by the election.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to LSU5508
quote:
And they will be released after the election giant win
Uh huh! But it won't be the win for the guy you're pulling for.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to jatilen
Was remanded back to the District Court.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to Godfather1
On the bright side, one of overrated Tom Friedman’s stipulations for Biden to debate Trump will be met
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to jatilen
quote:
The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case may be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate."
So this isn’t going to be decided until after the election?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to jatilen
quote:
To state the obvious, seems that Mazars will be a separate decision, due in a few minutes, and most likely by Roberts.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to PhoenixLSUTiger
Shut up, cuck
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to mays
How long until someone leaks documents submitted to the GJ?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:18 am to Decatur
Ok cool, so now let’s do Hillary, the Clinton foundation, Bill, Obama, Biden...the public deserves the truth, right?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:19 am to jatilen
So basically the Supreme Court threw the president a bone and said you have further grounds that we did not address
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:19 am to jatilen
quote:
The Alito dissent seems to suggest Mazars also went against Trump. I’m trying to pull the language now.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:19 am to jatilen
quote:
In a footnote, Roberts notes that the "daylight between our opinion" and the Thomas "dissent" is "not as great as that label might suggest." "We agree that Presidents are neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas nor insulated by a heightened need standard." Here's some key language: "We agree that Presidents may challenge specific subpoenas as impeding their Article II functions." "And although we affirm while Justice Thomas would vacate, we agree that this case will be remanded to the District Court."
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:19 am to jatilen
So they punted. Typical.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:19 am to wickowick
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News