- 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 9:25 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents without recourse. A President may avail himself of the same protec-tions available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth. When the President invokes such protections, “[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive . . . should inform the conduct of the entire pro-ceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery.” Clinton, 520 U. S., at 707. In addition, a President can raise subpoena-specific con-stitutional challenges in either a state or a federal forum. As noted above, he can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties, in violation of the Supremacy Clause. And he can argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties.
Looks like they will be in court for another 3-4 years before any tax returns need to be turned over.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:25 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:So you fix the underlying laws that allowed the subpoena.quote:
It is legally the right decision
Yup, now corrupt da’s can attack a president politically using the power of their office.
That ain't SCOTUS's job.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:25 am to claremontrich
well the headlines show a loss but name one media outlet that will report the details.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:25 am to udtiger
quote:How exactly did Roberts' become the impact vote on this case?
Roberts giveth...and Roberts taketh away...
It was 7-2
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:25 am to AggieHank86
And you didn’t plagiarize anything, I’m sure.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:25 am to claremontrich
Just because Fatty Stirewalt says he lost, doesn't mean it's true. Stand by for Baier and Wallace to arrive and chime in on Trump's immediate demise.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:25 am to wickowick
Great, time for all candidates for public office to be required to do this, Senate, House, Dog Catcher. Burn it down. Shine the light on the finances of all the swamp scum.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
But, he says, the House's approach "fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns raised by congressional subpoenas for the President's information."
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to jatilen
quote:
The Court has vacated the decisions below in Mazars, and it holds that congressional subpoenas may be enforceable but that the courts below did not take account of all the possible separation of powers concerns. The case will this go on. So this issue is back in the hands of the DC and Second Circuits for now.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I set forth the legal analysis on this case for y'all ... many months ago. This opinion confirms that I was correct.
Come on, you can admit it.
You are a sharp guy and I appreciate your contributions
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to wickowick
Trump should immediately demand Biden's and Hunter's Tax Returns. Since personal income is an Campaign issue, IRS should be directed by Barr to cough it up. The American Electorate has a right to make an educated choice. 
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to claremontrich
quote:
How exactly did Roberts' become the impact vote on this case?
He wrote both opinions
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:I say that about Roe, all the time.
I cannot recall a single time when anyone posted "Well, SCOTUS sure fricked up that decision and they have no understanding...but, I am happy they are so stupid!"
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
CNN is already saying they're not interested, they've gone to debating whether Trump mad because his appointees joined lol
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I say that about Roe, all the time.
I wasn't posting here when that ruling came down
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:27 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
The Court basically punted both back to the lower courts. Neither of these Will be done anytime soon.
I’ll say this about the Robert’s Court. They would be Hall of fame punters in the NFL.
I’ll say this about the Robert’s Court. They would be Hall of fame punters in the NFL.
This post was edited on 7/9/20 at 9:30 am
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:28 am to claremontrich
quote:HMB (Harvard Man Bad)
How exactly did Roberts' become the impact vote on this case?
It was 7-2
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:29 am to wickowick
Can't Trump mark them Confidential or Proprietary to preclude theiree release to the public?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:30 am to Wtodd
quote:
Roberts lays out a new four-factor test in Mazars, and that will have to be applied initially on a remand to the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit will determine how rigorous a test it is in the first instance.
quote:
As Eric outlines below, this is basically a Goldilocks approach. The test proposed by the president and the SG is too tough. The House test is too lax. The court outlines a set of "special considerations" that the courts should take into account on remand and sends the cases back to the lower courts for further consideration. So I am going to take back my suggestion that this is more of a win for the president than Vance -- I think it's basically the same. In this set of cases and the Vance case, we are going to have more litigation, and no one is going to see any financial documents any time soon.
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News