Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to shield records from Jan. 6 committee

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Funny how the only Justice who would have blocked it is married to a person who has ...  problematic ties to the events of January 6th but hey, I guess he's ride or die so there's that. Gotta respect a man who loves his wife.

 

Quote

 

The appeals court panel concluded unanimously that Trump could not assert executive privilege over the records as a former president because the incumbent, President Joe Biden, had agreed to hand the files over to the House committee.

The Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday did not reach a final conclusion on this point but said Trump’s effort failed because his assertion of executive privilege would have failed even if he were still in office.

“The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns,” the high court said.

“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the unsigned Supreme Court order added.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/trump-supreme-court-records-527421

 

Order here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21182369-order-21a272

 

I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.

[Dashinka 24,724]

What goes around comes around.

[jg121783 3,921]

The end of separation of powers.

[jg121783 3,921]

19 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.

I have no doubt this will go the same way all the phony investigations into Trump since 2016 have gone. Precisely nowhere.

[aaron2020 11,651]

6 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

The end of separation of powers.

Ha. Ha.

 

6 Republicans on the Supremes.  They are out to get orange glow.  

[jg121783 3,921]

3 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

Ha. Ha.

 

6 Republicans on the Supremes.  They are out to get orange glow.  

A few of them are RINOs.

[aaron2020 11,651]

8 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

A few of them are RINOs.

Which ones?  I am sure they are the same Democrats who instigated the Jan 6 Insurrection.  

Edited January 20, 2022 by aaron2020

[Dashinka 24,724]

16 hours ago, aaron2020 said:

Ha. Ha.

 

6 Republicans on the Supremes.  They are out to get orange glow.  

It was an interesting decision.  They essentially said even a sitting president could not keep these types of things from Congress.  Will be interesting if the GOP takes control of the House next January and starts demanding documents from the current dysfunctional WH.  As to Trump, the best thing he could do to help the GOP is to come out and say he is not running in 2024.  It would take a huge political item off the MSM's list of focusing on.  He probably won't do that, but IMO, even though I liked his policies and tolerated his buffoonery, I would be against him running in 2024 just based on his age.  He should enjoy retirement, he can golf more.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 1/20/2022 at 11:42 AM, jg121783 said:

The end of separation of powers.

 

OverSIGhT Is litEraLLY CoNgResS's joB. See, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Federalist No. 51. But, like, what would James Madison know about any of this stuff?

 

Oh wait, are you talking about whether SCOTUS has the right to make a ruling? Nah brah, totally their wheelhouse. This isn't a political question, it's a constitutional one, and otherwise completely justiciable. Soooooooo... also their job.

 

Just because you don't like it don't mean it ain't legal.

 

Fees waived.

[jg121783 3,921]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

OverSIGhT Is litEraLLY CoNgResS's joB. See, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Federalist No. 51. But, like, what would James Madison know about any of this stuff?

 

Oh wait, are you talking about whether SCOTUS has the right to make a ruling? Nah brah, totally their wheelhouse. This isn't a political question, it's a constitutional one, and otherwise completely justiciable. Soooooooo... also their job.

 

Just because you don't like it don't mean it ain't legal.

 

Fees waived.

It's a matter of executive privilege being trampled on by the legislative branch. Nothing to do with "SCOTUS having the right to make a ruling" whatever that is supposed to mean. Good thing you waived the fees otherwise I would have to ask for a full refund. By the way I'm curious. What great revelation is it that you think were gonna see as a result of this?

Edited January 27, 2022 by jg121783

[Dashinka 24,724]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

OverSIGhT Is litEraLLY CoNgResS's joB. See, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Federalist No. 51. But, like, what would James Madison know about any of this stuff?

 

Oh wait, are you talking about whether SCOTUS has the right to make a ruling? Nah brah, totally their wheelhouse. This isn't a political question, it's a constitutional one, and otherwise completely justiciable. Soooooooo... also their job.

 

Just because you don't like it don't mean it ain't legal.

 

Fees waived.

Yes, we see those oversight circuses all the time.  Dr. Fauci comes to the Senate or House and blatantly lies to those we elect to oversee the Executive and Judicial branches.  DC is clearly broken but unfortunately I think it is well beyond repair.

[TBoneTX 45,875]

20 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

totally their wheelhouse

So who, then, is in charge of justiciating tortfeasin'?

20 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Fees waived.

Traitoress to the profession!  Bad Maven ma'am!  Bad, BAD Maven ma'am!   

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

17 hours ago, jg121783 said:

It's a matter of executive privilege being trampled on by the legislative branch. Nothing to do with "SCOTUS having the right to make a ruling" whatever that is supposed to mean. Good thing you waived the fees otherwise I would have to ask for a full refund. By the way I'm curious. What great revelation is it that you think were gonna see as a result of this?

Dude, lawyers gonna lawyer.  That's all they know.  That, and over-billing for services never rendered.  

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

17 hours ago, jg121783 said:

It's a matter of executive privilege being trampled on by the legislative branch. Nothing to do with "SCOTUS having the right to make a ruling" whatever that is supposed to mean. Good thing you waived the fees otherwise I would have to ask for a full refund. By the way I'm curious. What great revelation is it that you think were gonna see as a result of this?

Incorrect. The court even took pains to say that this isn't what they were considering. Here's a bigly chunk of their opinion (emphasis mine):

Quote

The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns. The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump’s privilege claims “under any of the tests [he] advocated,” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F. 4th 10, 33 (CADC 2021), without regard to his status as a former President, id., at 40–46. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. Id., at 33 (noting no “need [to] conclusively resolve whether and to what extent a court,” at a former President’s behest, may “second guess the sitting President’s” decision to release privileged documents); see also id., at 17 n. 2

SCOTUS didn't touch executive privilege. Read again. The question as to whether a former president may exercise executive privilege remains an open one. The eminently readable (and shock! horror! mostly lefty but not always!) Lawfare has a good rundown on the issues: https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-loses-big-executive-privilege Look, if I read some of the more outré articles linked here while stuffing my fist in my mouth laughing, you can return the favor. 

 

There's a legitimate legislative purpose in receiving the documents -- Congressional oversight of the executive branch. Now, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean anything has been trampled. The bar is pretty low here, and it was relatively easy to step over it.

 

Please to note: if the Supreme Court says X is acting in a constitutional manner, then X is, for the time being, until the Court changes its mind. There are more than a few Supreme Court rulings I vehemently disagree with while still accepting the reality that the rulings are ab initio constitutional because of the source of the ruling. 

 

I was answering your point about separation of powers, by the way, but you seem to have missed that. That's okay, we all have our moments. You appeared to be making a point about whether SCOTUS even had the power to determine this dispute, and I was saying yes, they do, because while Article III courts may not hear purely political questions, if a case arising in the legislature is otherwise justiciable, the courts are empowered to hear the case. This is not a purely political question. I wasn't surprised by this ruling in the slightest.

 

I genuinely have no idea what will turn up, but it's likely to be "interesting," which is the adjective I used, rather than depicting it as a "great revelation" as you would have had me say. All sorts of things can be interesting without being great revelations.

[TBoneTX 45,875]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

So who, then, is in charge of justiciating tortfeasin'?

No answer yet to this question of highest relevance.