• 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!

Judge Rules Against Trump In Financial Records Dispute With Congress

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
OscarLevant said:
Tsk tsk. Looks like things are not going
Trump's way.
Click to expand...

We'll see what the Supremes think about this, but I have a feeling that this..."The committee’s reasons were “valid legislative purposes,” Mehta said, and it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”...is going to cause the Supremes to take a BIG bite out of Mehta's ass.
 
IF something like this is allowed to stand....the whole separation of powers is in for rude awakening
 
Mycroft said:
We'll see what the Supremes think about this, but I have a feeling that this..."The committee’s reasons were “valid legislative purposes,” Mehta said, and it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”...is going to cause the Supremes to take a BIG bite out of Mehta's ass.
Click to expand...

The courts are getting a bit out there lately with decisions that lack of a search warrant is OK so long as a search warrant would likely have been issued if bothered to be sought.
 
Trump said:
IF something like this is allowed to stand...ng
Click to expand...
It won't.

From the link..
"...U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by President Barack Obama"

Meaning he most likely rules based on desired effect.
Thus USSC will rule based on the law.
 
Mycroft said:
We'll see what the Supremes think about this, but I have a feeling that this..."The committee’s reasons were “valid legislative purposes,” Mehta said, and it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”...is going to cause the Supremes to take a BIG bite out of Mehta's ass.
Click to expand...

Name any case where SCOTUS has intervened to override Congressional authority to act on a law that’s been on the books for nearly a century. Also, what makes you think that SCOTUS would question Congresses motives or right to act on the law?
 
Trump said:
IF something like this is allowed to stand....the whole separation of powers is in for rude awakening
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. Congress has broad investigative power in exercising its Constitutional powers. That includes subpoenas for tax records - including the Presidents.
 
Mycroft said:
We'll see what the Supremes think about this, but I have a feeling that this..."The committee’s reasons were “valid legislative purposes,” Mehta said, and it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”...is going to cause the Supremes to take a BIG bite out of Mehta's ass.
Click to expand...


I doubt it, why would SCOTUS want meddle in this lower court's ruling? See, they won't want to bother, for if they did, then there will be a spate of such court challenges everytime congress decides to investigate, given that no one who is the subject of a Congressional investigation will feel they are justly being investigated, especially Trump. Anyway, Mehta is right, there are all kinds of room for legislative purpose here, noting that Legistlative purpose is not even needed. Congress has a duty to provide oversight and Team Trump will ALWAYS declare "overreach", no matter what.

In short, Team Trump is grasping at straws.

Not seeing your point of view at all, here.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The courts are getting a bit out there lately with decisions that lack of a search warrant is OK so long as a search warrant would likely have been issued if bothered to be sought.
Click to expand...


no search warrant is necessary to subpoena people to testify before congress, you're a bit mixed up on this.
 
Mycroft said:
We'll see what the Supremes think about this, but I have a feeling that this..."The committee’s reasons were “valid legislative purposes,” Mehta said, and it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”...is going to cause the Supremes to take a BIG bite out of Mehta's ass.
Click to expand...

It'd be a shame if you side packed the court for nothing. Well, even if this doesn't go your way, you can always count on them to side with the rich and corporations against workers and consumers.
 
Trump said:
IF something like this is allowed to stand....the whole separation of powers is in for rude awakening
Click to expand...


Au contraire, the whole separation of powers concept is what this is all about, so it will be allowed to stand for that very reason.
 
OscarLevant said:
I doubt it, why would SCOTUS want meddle in this lower court's ruling? See, they won't want to bother, for if they did, then there will be a spate of such court challenges everytime congress decides to investigate, given that no one who is the subject of a Congressional investigation will feel they are justly being investigated, especially Trump. Anyway, Mehta is right, there are all kinds of room for legislative purpose here, noting that Legistlative purpose is not even needed. Congress has a duty to provide oversight and Team Trump will ALWAYS declare "overreach", no matter what.

In short, Team Trump is grasping at straws.

Not seeing your point of view at all, here.
Click to expand...

My point is this:

It is a judge's duty to consider ALL aspects of a case. A judge who makes a decision on one part of the case, but then says it's not his job to make a decision on another part of the case is being dishonest and is failing at his job.

I predict the Supremes will spank that judge's ass and then proceed to make their own decision...as responsible judges should do.
 
Mycroft said:
My point is this:

It is a judge's duty to consider ALL aspects of a case. A judge who makes a decision on one part of the case, but then says it's not his job to make a decision on another part of the case is being dishonest and is failing at his job.

I predict the Supremes will spank that judge's ass and then proceed to make their own decision...as responsible judges should do.
Click to expand...

This is not how it works. Courts are required to be highly deferential to both Congress and the President in the exercise of their powers. The court isn’t supposed to read either the President’s mind or Congresses to try to discern a sinister motive. Courts can use statements made by either to see if they’re lying about their motives but that’s pretty much as far as it goes.

Absent Congress saying “we’re lying about why we want his taxes” there is nothing for the court to decide outside of whether the the exercise of power in and of itself is Constitutional.

If the President wants to prove Congress is lying about their motives he needs to present evidence that they are in the form of statements to the contrary. He has not. It’s not the judge’s job to find the evidence it’s his job to evaluate the evidence presented to him in light of the law and precedent.

This is all spelled out in detail in the opinion.
 
OscarLevant said:
Au contraire, the whole separation of powers concept is what this is all about, so it will be allowed to stand for that very reason.
Click to expand...

not how it works...Dems are just deflecting because Mueller didn't come up with the goods...just another rabbit hole...remember mantra "wait til Mueller Report comes out Trump and his whole family will end up in jail"

Dems have failed and soon will be put down by Durham report indictments
 
Trump said:
not how it works...Dems are just deflecting because Mueller didn't come up with the goods...just another rabbit hole...remember mantra "wait til Mueller Report comes out Trump and his whole family will end up in jail"

Dems have failed and soon will be put down by Durham report indictments
Click to expand...

You might think so but the real world runs on evidence not what you think. And the President presented no evidence that Congress is lying.
 
gaius46 said:
you might think so but the real world runs on evidence not what you think. and the president presented no evidence that congress is lying.
Click to expand...

yet.....
 
Mycroft said:
My point is this:

It is a judge's duty to consider ALL aspects of a case. A judge who makes a decision on one part of the case, but then says it's not his job to make a decision on another part of the case is being dishonest and is failing at his job.

I predict the Supremes will spank that judge's ass and then proceed to make their own decision...as responsible judges should do.
Click to expand...



I'm not seeing a the lower court's ruling as even remotely unconstitutional and it is squarely applied to the law, so not seeing a compelling reason SCOTUS would even bother with it. But, we shall see:

I stand by my previous comment:
I doubt it, why would SCOTUS want meddle in this lower court's ruling? See, they won't want to bother, for if they did, then there will be a spate of such court challenges everytime congress decides to investigate, given that no one who is the subject of a Congressional investigation will feel they are justly being investigated, especially Trump. Anyway, Mehta is right, there are all kinds of room for legislative purpose here, noting that Legistlative purpose is not even needed. Congress has a duty to provide oversight and Team Trump will ALWAYS declare "overreach", no matter what.

In short, Team Trump is grasping at straws.

Not seeing your point of view at all, here.
Click to expand...
 
Trump said:
not how it works...Dems are just deflecting because Mueller didn't come up with the goods...just another rabbit hole...remember mantra "wait til Mueller Report comes out Trump and his whole family will end up in jail"

Dems have failed and soon will be put down by Durham report indictments
Click to expand...


Now you are dreaming.

Rosenstein, Sessions, Gray, Mueller, Comey, McCabe Those are all Republicans.

Stzrok was taken off the team.

Besides, the party is just starting with Congress and the hearings that will bring to fore those extremely unflattering details in the Mueller report, the kind of details that implicate people, which, come to think of it, has done already in spades.

Wake up and smell the Trump stink.
 
Mycroft said:
We'll see what the Supremes think about this, but I have a feeling that this..."The committee’s reasons were “valid legislative purposes,” Mehta said, and it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”...is going to cause the Supremes to take a BIG bite out of Mehta's ass.
Click to expand...

When was the last time an appeals court or the Supreme Court ruled against congress...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Judicial Branch CAN step-in in cases where Congress is exercising their power. [ I had previously over-estimated the powers of the Legislative Branch by a degree. ]
However, the Judicial Branch seems to have reserved that for cases where they are unable to give the Legislative Branch the benefit of the doubt that legislation "could be had" on the subject.

So, a petitioner who said the Legislature had overstepped would have to be able to remove that possibility the legislation could be had on the subject before the Judicial Branch would get involved.

It's a very low bar for the Legislature — they only have to show that legislation *could* be had on w/e subject.
It's a very high bar for a petitioner — they have convince the Courts that there's no reasonable way legislation *could* be had on w/e subject.

The Courts intentionally decided to ignore the possibility that the Legislative Branch could have other additional agendas and focused merely on the question of whether or not the Legislature's actions were within its very broad scope of "legislation could be had on the subject".

So, technically, in theory, yes, the Courts could step in.
But in practice, the bar is so very high for anyone who objects, that there's no realistic expectation that the Courts would rule that the Legislature was unable to make legislation on w/e subject.


attachment.php
 
OscarLevant said:
Tsk tsk. Looks like things are not going
Trump's way.
Click to expand...

it was not for him “to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”

In other words, the judge believes that it is ok for witch hunt investigations based on political considerations.
 
Gaius46 said:
Quite the opposite. Congress has broad investigative power in exercising its Constitutional powers. That includes subpoenas for tax records - including the Presidents.
Click to expand...

When the investigative powers are used for purely partisan reasons, the system has run amok and are abusing their power.
 
j brown's body said:
It'd be a shame if you side packed the court for nothing. Well, even if this doesn't go your way, you can always count on them to side with the rich and corporations against workers and consumers.
Click to expand...

They are supposed to side with the law. Liberals seem to forget this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom