• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court will hear three cases over Trump’s financial records

TomFitz said:
Yes, that’s true.

These cases have moved through the lower courts without controversy. Trump’s claims have been dismissed out of hand.

The law is clear and unambiguous.
Click to expand...

A lot of lawyers are predicting a 9-0 decision in favor of lower court rulings. I am totally not that confident, and speaking just for myself, there is every reason to see this as a close call.
 
Cardinal said:
A lot of lawyers are predicting a 9-0 decision in favor of lower court rulings. I am totally not that confident, and speaking just for myself, there is every reason to see this as a close call.
Click to expand...

I don’t trust this current line up of Supreme Court Justices, since 5 of them came from the federalist society and the current attorney general gave a speech at the federalist society.


The federalist society seems to be strongly in favor of a all powerful executive branch.
 
MTAtech said:
I'm not addressing any false equivalences. What I am stating is that there was a time in which basic policies of the New Deal were supported by both parties, as evident by Eisenhower stating, “should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Where have Republicans gone off-the-rails? In 1956, the Republican platform stated, "we are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people."

Can you imagine Republicans in our government saying that today? Today, any program that promises to make the lives of Americans better is labeled "socialism" by today's Republicans -- in a craven attempt to use "socialism" to dry up support for popular ideas.
Click to expand...

I had to read that platform excerpt twice. I thought you were crazy. Oh, real Republican party, we barely knew thee. RIP.
 
TurtleDude said:
sounds like a google attack. He googled something that he really doesn't understand, and injected it here trying to gain attention. His silly question has zero relevance to my point that republican justices are less likely to support their party than democrat justices
Click to expand...

It's one of the more bizarre bogeymen to come of the lefty fever swamps lately. They've got everyone convinced the Federalist Society is some kind of evil cult, which is the standard kind of demonizing fare for the rabid left-wing blogosphere, but I've been seeing "unitary executive" more and more, which I guess is being fueled by the same folks. What exactly is supposed to be so onerous about that, I doubt even the people who spread it know, but I guess they've been told it's bad, and that's that. It must be bad.
 
Harshaw said:
It's one of the more bizarre bogeymen to come of the lefty fever swamps lately. They've got everyone convinced the Federalist Society is some kind of evil cult, which is the standard kind of demonizing fare for the rabid left-wing blogosphere, but I've been seeing "unitary executive" more and more, which I guess is being fueled by the same folks. What exactly is supposed to be so onerous about that, I doubt even the people who spread it know, but I guess they've been told it's bad, and that's that. It must be bad.
Click to expand...

I thought the exact same thing when people from the right lost their minds about the SPLC a few weeks ago. Half of them didn't even know what the acronymn stands for, but by gawd, they know it's an evil lefty thing they hate.
 
Nalu said:
I thought the exact same thing when people from the right lost their minds about the SPLC a few weeks ago. Half of them didn't even know what the acronymn stands for, but by gawd, they know it's an evil lefty thing they hate.
Click to expand...

I'll take from this that you don't have a bee in your bonnet about the Federalist Society, then.
 
Harshaw said:
I'll take from this that you don't have a bee in your bonnet about the Federalist Society, then.
Click to expand...

Not particularly. I don't like the influence it has over government, but the same is true for at least a million other entities.
 
TurtleDude said:
have you ever noticed that GOP justices are far more likely to vote against what is seen as the interests of their side than Dems? example-Bush v Gore-all the dems voted for Gore, as did a republican. On Heller, two republicans and two dems voted against Gun rights.
Click to expand...

Not really. They don't view themselves as having a 'side'. "Conservative" judges tend to be more conservative in their interpretation of the law. That's a good thing - you want judges that will uphold the constitution and the law, and make decisions on the merit of the case.

The problem with the 'liberal' side isn't just that they take a more 'liberal' interpretation - but that many tend to be more activist in their approach, looking to what they feel the law 'should be'. But to be fair, I don't think 'liberal' judges necessarily view themselves as pushing a 'democrat agenda'. (With a few notable exceptions like Kagan and Ginsburg).

A more conservative court does NOT mean that they are stacked for Trump - quite the opposite. It simply means he's likely to get a fair hearing. That may or may not be in his favor.
 
None of the Justices of the Supreme Court are likely to feel any loyalty to party or politicians.

That's kinda the whole point of life tenure.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don’t trust this current line up of Supreme Court Justices, since 5 of them came from the federalist society and the current attorney general gave a speech at the federalist society.


The federalist society seems to be strongly in favor of a all powerful executive branch.
Click to expand...

Show that to be true.

I gather you think "unitary executive" means "all-powerful executive." It doesn't. It simply means that all executive power is vested in the President, and it all flows from him to the executive branches. It doesn't mean executive power is unlimited; it only means that the limited executive power which exists is the President's to wield. As I said, if you don't think that's true, then state where the Constitution vests executive power in anyone but the President.

I'm guessing you think that because the Federalist Society endorses unitary executive theory (which has been the standard understanding of the executive since the beginning of the country), that means they endorse this "all-powerful executive." If so, then that stems from your misunderstanding of the terms.

But if that's not why you think the Federalist Society is "strongly in favor of" an all-powerful executive branch, then state why.
 
Mycroft said:
I find it interesting...but not surprising...that few members of our forum are actually addressing the underlying issues of these three suits and the kind of defense that Trump's lawyers are mounting.

Here is a very good breakdown of the issue that explains why this move by the Supremes is a good thing for Trump...at least, in respect to the two suits brought by the House.
Click to expand...

I have seen similar arguments being made.
It is right up the alley and probably what the scotus is going to rule on.
 
Nalu said:
When you call Democrats Socialists, do you think you're dissuading moderates from voting for them or is it just a nod and a wink to other conservatives?
Click to expand...
Nah, just typical ignorant crap from uneducated Trump ass kissers.
 
ocean515 said:
Yep. The mistake was allowing the campaign element to be involved, rather than the Charity. That resulted in the perception of co-mingled funds.

It's kind of a process error, but then again, the people who tell the stories about it know their target audience are too stupid to understand, so propaganda mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's really nothing...

"Trump also accepted restrictions on his involvement in other charitable organizations. His three eldest children, who were members of the foundation’s board, must undergo mandatory training on the duties of those who run charities."
 
CaughtInThe said:
yeah, it's really nothing...

"Trump also accepted restrictions on his involvement in other charitable organizations. His three eldest children, who were members of the foundation’s board, must undergo mandatory training on the duties of those who run charities."
Click to expand...

No crime, as I stated.
 
Mycroft said:
I find it interesting...but not surprising...that few members of our forum are actually addressing the underlying issues of these three suits and the kind of defense that Trump's lawyers are mounting.

Here is a very good breakdown of the issue that explains why this move by the Supremes is a good thing for Trump...at least, in respect to the two suits brought by the House.

The Supreme Court Halts Lower Court Ruling for President Trump Tax Returns…. | The Last Refuge

ristvan says:

November 18, 2019 at 4:58 pm

Lurking Lawyer here.
Sundance is directionally correct, but the case is a bit more convoluted because of its time line. The odds of PDJT prevailing are therefor greater than 50%.

House Oversight is one of three committees that 26USC§6103(f) requires the IRS to turn over individual returns upon request. They requested (PDJT for 6 years 2013-2018) long before Pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, way before the House vote on same, to which Pelosi said Sunday, (paraphrased) “We haven’t decided to impeach. We are only inquiring about it.’
Click to expand...

I think both you and the author of the comment you copied and pasted are confusing the various cases.

To the best of my knowledge the set of cases that the OP is referring to in this thread which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, and even the cases referenced in the original Conservative Treehouse blog article, do not involve 26 USC § 6103(f).

The case involving 26 USC § 6103(f) is the following: Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig.

Trump Litigation Round Up - Lawfare

I think a good place to start if you are serious about discussing anything related to these cases is to read the briefs and rulings related to the actual cases, instead of random comments from a "lawyer" who frequents one of the worst, most inaccurate, propagandistic, pro-Trump conspiracy theory websites on the internet.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I think both you and the author of the comment you copied and pasted are confusing the various cases.

To the best of my knowledge the set of cases that the OP is referring to in this thread which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, and even the cases referenced in the original Conservative Treehouse blog article, do not involve 26 USC § 6103(f).

The case involving 26 USC § 6103(f) is the following: Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig.

Trump Litigation Round Up - Lawfare

I think a good place to start if you are serious about discussing anything related to these cases is to read the briefs and rulings related to the actual cases, instead of random comments from a "lawyer" who frequents one of the worst, most inaccurate, propagandistic, pro-Trump conspiracy theory websites on the internet.
Click to expand...

1. Past rulings say that congress must have a legit legislative reason. If they want to check irs presidental process for tax returns they don't need trumps. They can look at any tax returns of past presidents to do that.

By targeting trump they lose that this is a process legislative issue.

2. Courts have ruled that congress is a legislative body not a law enforcement body. They are not allowed to search for right or wrong or criminal activity. So they are going to lose there as well.

3. Trump still has privacy rights. So the committee has to have a large reason to violate those.

These are all huge obstacles that congress has to overcome and I hope they fail.

The reasons the protections we have in place is to stop what is going on right now. The fact the left wants to violate these rights doesn't surprise me.
They hate the constitution because it gets in the way of the totalitarianism.
 
ludin said:
If they want to check irs presidental process for tax returns they don't need trumps.
Click to expand...

With respect to your, now, second reference to the IRS in this thread:

You and Mycroft, and I think also the so-called "lawyer" from the stupid pro-Trump conspiracy theory website Conservative Treehouse, are mixing up the cases.

The case involving 26 USC § 6103(f), the case about trying to get the IRS to hand over Trump's tax returns, is the following: Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig.

The cases mentioned in the OP, the three cases which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, involve subpoenas to third-parties associated with Trump, not the IRS:

Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP & Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives

Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. & Mazars USA, LLP

Donald J. Trump et al v. Deutsche Bank AG, Capital One Financial Corp.; Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121319zr_1a7d.pdf

Trump Litigation Round Up - Lawfare
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
1. Past rulings say that congress must have a legit legislative reason.
Click to expand...

Based on the majority ruling in Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP & Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, what constitutes a valid legislative purpose appears to be much broader than you think.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-bb27-d25f-af7f-ff2f12290000

By targeting trump they lose that this is a process legislative issue.
Click to expand...

Hrmm. That's not what the majority said in Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP & Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives

Third, the Trump Plaintiffs argue that the subpoena’s “laser-focus[] on the businesses and finances of one person” evinces “a particularity that is the hallmark of executive and judicial power.” Appellants’ Br. 35. But again, Supreme Court precedent forecloses this contention. In McGrain, for example, the Senate authorized a select committee “to investigate . . . the alleged failure of Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute properly violators of” anti-trust laws and “further directed [the committee] to inquire into, investigate and report . . . the activities of the said Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General, and any of his assistants . . . which would in any manner tend to impair their efficiency or influence as representatives of the government of the United States.” 273 U.S. at 151–52 (internal quotation marks omitted). Untroubled by the resolution’s “direct reference to the then Attorney General by name,” the Court held that “the resolution and proceedings” of the investigatory committee “g[a]ve no warrant for thinking the Senate was attempting or intending to try the Attorney General . . . before its committee for any crime or wrongdoing.” Id. at 179.

The lesson of McGrain is that an investigation may properly focus on one individual if that individual’s conduct offers a valid point of departure for remedial legislation. Again, such is the case here. It is not at all suspicious that the Committee would focus an investigation into presidential financial disclosures on the accuracy and sufficiency of the sitting President’s filings. That the Committee began its inquiry at a logical starting point betrays no hidden law-enforcement purpose.
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-bb27-d25f-af7f-ff2f12290000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom