Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/05/12/u-s-supreme-court-to-decide-i.html
…
5 Likes
Unfortunately, Roberts will probably rule in Il Douche’s favour, not due to any particular love for the grifter but rather because of his boundless need to protect the rights of corporate “persons”.
6 Likes
My prediction is that they will essentially pass the buck (i.e. say that they can’t rule on it because it’s inherently political)
5 Likes
That means the lower court’s ruling will stick, right? I wouldn’t mind that outcome. I doubt it though. And lemme guess: 45’s appointees are not going to recuse themselves.
5 Likes
I don’t think so - this is what happened in a recent case they heard on gerrymandering. This article gives an analysis of the implications:
" Concluding that the dispute is a political fight that’s simply out of their hands — which is what the court did last year in a case involving partisan gerrymandering — could be attractive, according to Vladeck and others. That’s in part because it’s genuinely unclear what the short-term impact would be.
If the courts step out of the way, the fateful decision whether to release Trump’s tax returns to the House committees would be left up to his banks and accounting firm. But how they would proceed in the absence of a court order is an open question. “At that point, it’s all about whether the banks and the accounting firm are inclined to comply,” said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. “If they are, Trump doesn’t have a way to stop them. But if they’re not, Congress doesn’t have a lot of other options to force them to comply.”"
11 Likes
Bah. Thanks for the clarification. What a bunch of shit.
FU 2020.
8 Likes
“Corporations are people”, a sentiment held only by those that are being, in some way or another, benefited to maintain it. Since, ya know, the stupidity of it is without end.
5 Likes
Narrator: They will.
I think Roberts (and maybe even Kavanaugh) could go against trump on this. Roberts is really cognizant of his legacy as chief justice, and congressional oversight of the executive branch is so fundamental, I think he will either chicken out and not hear the case or uphold the lower courts’ rulings
4 Likes
EDIT: never mind, someone else explained what you meant. Big duh on my part, I get it now.
They would have already kicked it back down, not be hearing the case, wouldn’t they? I think this is end game for this line of inquiry. The Supreme Court ruling will tell us how far down the shitter we’ve gone. I am cautiously, stupidly optimistic it’ll be 6-3 for “no one is above the law, he must allow Congress to perform oversight duties.”
2 Likes
Impossible. He promised to release them if he ever ran for President as early as 2014, and promised again in 2016. Surely you’re not suggesting he isn’t good to his word?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/16/donald-trump-2014-taxes-comment-nr.cnn
9 Likes
“Your Honor, I didn’t commit bank robbery. I merely mugged First National Bank which is a much less serious charge.”
2 Likes
Given how often we’ve seen that all the supposed checks on the activities of the POTUS can be effectively thwarted by saying, “nuh uh”, I have little confidence that this will go anywhere.
7 Likes
The issue is just that, it could just be viewed as a norm he violated. While Congress is within it’s rights to provide oversight, the SC could say this isn’t about oversight, it’s about politics and we don’t get involved in politics (lol).
One difference is that he’s claiming the right not only to keep his personal tax information private (something most any citizen could do under most circumstances), but that he’s also claiming the right to block congress from getting tax information on the Trump Organization.
So for example, if the Trump Organization paid hush money to porn stars to protect Trump’s election chances and then claimed that as a “business expense” to reduce their tax liability then no one would be allowed to investigate it. That’s not just “violating a norm,” it’s straight up criminal conspiracy.
8 Likes
i understand your cynicism (cynicism being just a synonym of the word “experiential wisdom”) but i think there are at least even odds roberts will join with the moderates on the court and rule against trump. among my reasons for that: this is a case that cuts against both parties equally, this gives him a vote that helps continue the fiction that the scotus is just an impartial umpire, and he really does detest trump.
6 Likes
if you haven’t heard yet, trumpkins is now seriously planning to have barr procecute obama to cause a major firestorm of distraction over this when his records come out
aka “obamagate” which isn’t a thing but of course he is going to invent it and insist it always was
we are literally living in a reality-show country, it’s insanity
1 Like
I’m kind of amazed that the information hasn’t been leaked to the dark web by now.
2 Likes
I won’t hold my breath. Even if ordered, he won’t comply. He just won’t. Why should he? He hasn’t had to conform to anything beyond his whims so far. Why start now?
6 Likes
U.S. Supreme Court to decide if Trump can continue to keep his finances secret
Some on the bench may have decided long, long ago.
1 Like
