Posted on 12/13/2019 1:46:21 PM PST by entropy12
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up President Trump’s broad claims of protection from investigation, raising the prospect of a landmark election-year ruling on the limits of presidential power.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I thought we already had 4th amendment rights...
.
If they just wanted to smack the Executive, they would of let the lower Court ruling stand.
It a pretty clear cut case Constitutionally. There no compelling reason for the Dems to have this info. It a transparent political fishing expedition.
I think the Justices sense of history and the rule of law will compel them to make a landmark ruling curbing Congress’s reckless abuse of their powers.
Broad claim?
No, it’s a rather simple one. He has Constitutional rights just like everyone else.
If there is known criminal activity, a subpoena can be obtained, but there is no evidence.
This was a fishing expedition and everyone knows it.
Some members of the SCOTUS don’t believe that there are ‘Rat Judges...
SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) by the left wing media.
But luckily, they are not the deciders. The final decider is always the SCOTUS.
WAPO is a sh*t operation
Correct! They (left wing prosecutors, Democrats) think if you can’t find evidence of crime, go after the tax returns. That is how they got Al Capone. They under-estimate Trump.
The question is whether a President can ignore a subpoena.
The ones Trump's fighting have already been issued.
And there comes a time when knee jerk irrational negative nonsense on ever thread needs to stop. There need to be a lot more serious thought put into the discussion instead instead of the habitual knee jerk whining.
That’s right. That article was written in style reminiscent of the old Soviet Union propaganda I remember reading back in the early 1980s ... and few people seem to even know what is happening those except the core of the conservative base.
Imagine if the Congress had subpoenaed all the financial records of George Washington.
Or Jackson, Jefferson, Madison.
Or Clinton, Bush, Obama.
What a sight that would be...
Alas, I cannot envision the USSC siding with the Congress. And a rational court would say they have no role in the dispute.
But in the modern era the most we can hope for is a ruling that protects POTUS under a combined umbrellas of the 4th Amendment, but mostly Executive Privilege.
A President has some limited right to privacy, and has agreement with the Courts that any oversight privilege he grants to Congress will not be harassing or in any way impede the effective execution of duties under the constitution.
Thus is the unwritten, extra-constitutional compromise of “Executive Privilege” vs “Congressional Oversight”.
When Congress and President compromised on that they made the courts the supreme arbiter of the US constitution and the superior branch of the three branches.
But there is but a SINGULAR enforcement mechanism and that is Impeachment and removal of the Executive. And none on Congress.
The “Imperial President” was the creation of the founding fathers. Awarded with immense power and discretion. As chief enforcer of the law, he was above the law. And he had sole possession of every means of enforcement at the federal level. Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy.
His only checks were removal from office if the 2/3 of the Senate wanted it to be so. Or, his defeat at the next election. Or the House refusing to fund him.
Need to make it clear that this will set precedence for every federal level elected official and appointee.
Including SCOTUS.
“The question is whether a President can ignore a subpoena.”
See #31
In the case of Al Capone, you had a guy that was a known underworld figure. That being the case, it may have been justified.
Of course Trump is a sitting president, honestly elected, and seemingly adhering to the laws of the land.
With the courts we have today, I don’t know if Capone would have been convicted, or if Trump will be able to avoid turning over his returns.
We’ll see, at least the Trump part.
According to our progressive party politburo, conservative do not have 1st, 2nd, 4th or 6th Amendment rights.
They are also ditching the 9th and 10th Commandment. (The Clintons ignored the 5th a lot!)
I think he is right to challenge it. I think he is right to claim his tax returns are none of their business, considering the circumstances.
Maybe I don’t understand the article, but I don’t see winning here — yet. Maybe later, depending on how SCOTUS rules ...?
“Actually there should be a land mark ruling limiting Congress’s abuse of it investigative powers for partisan political reasons.”
That “power” is a privilege ceded to Congress by the Executive and subsequently reinforced by a series of court rulings.
It’s extra-constitutional.
The stay of the lower court rulings are the win. Those opinions will be reversed. SCOTUS wouldn’t have taken the cases if they weren’t concerned about the precedent of those rulings.
Perhaps Trump’s lawyers will use the arguments the demokraps used against him (his campaign rhetoric about Muslims) was a basis for denying him tightening immigration from certain countries. All their individual and party statements show there is no legitimate reason for the records. Of course Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg should be challenged to recuse herself based on her statements against POTUS as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.