General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is Big! Fed judge fast-tracking case over Congress' subpoena of Trump's accounting (read taxes)
Hearing is Tuesday before Judge Amit Mehta--DC District Court, Obama nominee
Link to tweet
Judge fast-tracks fight over congressional subpoena of Trump financial records
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/trump-financial-subpoena/index.html
More: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/443015-judge-sets-trump-lawsuit-over-congressional-subpoenas-on-track-for
Nor is there an obvious need to delay ruling on the merits to allow for development of the factual record, Mehta, an Obama nominee, wrote.
The judge gave both parties until May 13 to submit filings stating support or opposition to his decision. A hearing is schedule for May 14.
GemDigger
(4,305 posts)I was expecting a couple of weeks but a couple of days!!??!!
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It seems like that's what that's saying? Not sure.
mia
(8,363 posts)Congress has subpoenaed Trump and his business' accounting records from the firm Mazars USA, and Trump's personal legal team sued to stop the records from being turned over.
A hearing is now scheduled for May 14.
Previously, the case was set up so that Mehta would consider it in multiple stages, beginning next week -- which could have lengthened out the legal fight and held off Congress from getting the records.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/trump-financial-subpoena/index.html
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)?itok=22ZVvttO
--snip--
Nor is there an obvious need to delay ruling on the merits to allow for development of the factual record, Mehta, an Obama nominee, wrote.
The judge gave both parties until May 13 to submit filings stating support or opposition to his decision. A hearing is schedule for May 14.
Mehta's ruling means there could be an expedited decision on whether the accounting firm can hand over the financial documents on Trump and his private businesses.
So much for holding things up in the courts.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)This is a hearing/trial I'd stand in line to get in to see.
maxsolomon
(33,475 posts)Amit Mehta is likely of South Asian descent.
Trump attacks him as an "Obama Judge" in 3, 2, 1...
itcfish
(1,828 posts)India
lunatica
(53,410 posts)shanti
(21,675 posts)pat_k
(9,313 posts)...things will move fast.
Courts don't dilly dally with really BIG questions of privilege. I think Trump is betting that his claims (once he actually invokes executive privilege -- not just "protective" privilege) things will move as slowly as they did with the narrow claim of privilege invoked by Obama.
As dysfunctional as our judicial system has become, I think the coming battle between Congress and Exec will quickly become a battle between Congress + Judiciary v. Trump -- and then things will move very fast. It was 13 weeks from Judge Sira's subpoena of the Nixon tapes to SCOTUS decision in U.S. v. Nixon -- which is lightening speed for the courts.
DeminPennswoods
(15,307 posts)critical it is to resolve these lawsuits quickly.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I guess Trump couldn't fire the DC judge. But seriously, judges really do try to be impartial and are required to rule according to the law. Still, there is judgment involved. Mueller's Report ended in a fizzle because of his judgment.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And an excellent example of why impeachment proceedings are not the only way to move forward at this point.
spanone
(135,958 posts)malaise
(269,365 posts)The vile MAGAscoundrel is going down
Firestorm49
(4,043 posts)doc03
(35,459 posts)them am I right or wrong?
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)for POTUS on all or nearly all of these issues, nonetheless. Including Tribe, Kaytal, Eisen, and others.
I fully expect SCOTUS will NOT hear all of what gets appealed up the chain by Trump, Inc.
crazytown
(7,277 posts)doesnt want to hide nor hair of it.
And when it comes to the Mueller Report, United States v Nixon was 9-0. Why would any justice want to go near that?
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Bettie
(16,151 posts)Rhenquist recused as he had worked in the Nixon admin as an assistant AG, I think.
Thanks for explaination.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)Rehnquist recusal - integrity is hard to find these days in the Trump GOP
Bettie
(16,151 posts)I don't think I've seen true integrity or even basic honesty in a Republican in several years.
I think John McCain may have been the last national Republican with any.
There are a few abandoning the GOP at the state level - that guy from Iowa and a few in Kansas.
doc03
(35,459 posts)had some loyalty to their country and the constitution back then.
crazytown
(7,277 posts)Citizens United for example.
However these instances are what is called Black letter law, that is cases so black and white, that SCOTUS would be reluctant to review them except for a case of true emergency (eg a war)
In black letter cases judges are reluctant to get their hands dirty ... it would require doing so much violence to the plain meaning of words, their judgments would likely be studied in law schools. GOP patsys are still mindful of their place in history. They have no desire to be ridiculed in perpetuity.
I believe SCOTUS wont want to go near this stuff. Trump et al, looking for a stay of execution will feel the noose tightening around their necks.
uponit7771
(90,378 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Besides Kavanaugh, they may be conservative, but may have limits. They are on for life, and the plus there is that they can afford to do the right thing. Roberts has. Unless there are 5 John Yoos on the court, this amount of executive power is not likely to be held to be correct. And if I remember right, even John Yoo disagrees ( I remember him because Lawrence O'Donnell or someone mentioned a recent opinion from him).
Stinky The Clown
(67,849 posts)She said if HE sees Trump over reaching, almost any court is likely to see it as an overreach.
I have zero faith in Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. I think Roberts, and dare I say it, Alito will be looking at the law and their legacies.
Mr.Bill
(24,379 posts)that Trumps success rate with the SCOTUS was 6%.
Ligyron
(7,648 posts)But not sure...
Mr.Bill
(24,379 posts)they are just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
They are not doing very well in that regard. In fact they suck at writing and implementing executive over reach.
Another term for these type people and their attempts at dictatorial Authoritarianism are:
LOSERs aka: Lame-ass, Fucking LOSERS
I wonder if they have to pay court costs and attorney fees when they inevitably LOSE these cases?
Anyway, I want Trump to die poor and ridiculed all the way to the grave. When he dares, or more likely is forced by absolute necessity to show his ugly face in public after his dethroning, I want epic torrents of ridicule smothering the LOSER followed closely by waves of rotten eggs, tomatoes and the like pummeling him from head to toe as he slinks back into the gutter. All this would occur of course after he completes his sentence provided he doesn't die in prison first.
SunSeeker
(51,824 posts)mcar
(42,478 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,595 posts)Thanks for the thread hlthe2b.
bluestarone
(17,149 posts)TY very much! We all needed this shot in the arm!!
watoos
(7,142 posts)But whatever this judge decides its going to be appealed to the next court, right on up to the SC.
triron
(22,031 posts)SallyHemmings
(1,825 posts)NoMoreRepugs
(9,530 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)talk radio chickenhawks working for trump, and will be getting threats from every state in the country
democrats need offense - like protests and boycotts to destroy that talk radio monopoly
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)Declaratory Actions, Summary Judgement. This isnt unusual. Cases get drawn out when there are significant issues of FACT or LAW. This is an easy case as there are no issues of fact or law. No discovery needed, no depositions needed, the facts are not contested and the law is clear. Judgement in favor of Congress. Appeal will be no different.
PunksMom
(440 posts)of feeling hopeful, & then comes the big let down. Please, please, please, can anyone make something happen to get this guy out of office, or at least have no chance in 2020?
enid602
(8,679 posts)I was hoping for another judge of Mexican ancestry.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)...to a friendlier judge.
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)And case law is such that even "friendly conservative" judges will find it difficult to not follow precedence.
Nothing is a sure thing, of course, but this is not one to assume the worst on...
Follow some of the constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe, Neal Katyal, Norm Eisen, and others twitter feeds. Even if you aren't on twitter (I'm not), you can bookmark the internet link and follow that way. Their discussions are often reassuring.
bluestarone
(17,149 posts)But what actual argument could they come up with?
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,509 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)TomSlick
(11,152 posts)Unlike the Repugnants in the Senate, federal judges don't have to fear the next election.
I know, Trump has appointed a lot of judges but I must believe the system will hold.
Perseus
(4,341 posts)Can you imagine that?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall saved this nation from a second civil war.
33taw
(2,450 posts)We may get a few wins, but the 2016 election was about the courts.
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)Is there a point to that?
33taw
(2,450 posts)Until we have a majority of liberal leaning justices on the Supreme Court, we are not likely to see wins in the courts. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are hard line conservatives. Roberts is the swing vote. I am not counting on Roberts to side with liberals very often, no matter how much he dislikes Trump.
Look at the rulings on the travel ban. It started looking great for liberals, then the door shut at the Supreme Court. We need to be honest with ourselves, 2016 was a major step backwards across the board and until we mobilize and take over the Senate where Judges and Justices are appointed all court battles will likely lean conservative at the Supreme Court. Yes, there was collusion, interference, cyber crime, but the DOJ wont enforce those crimes. Unless, it is handled at the state level we can be upset, but that wont resolve it. Trump will not be tried or convicted by this Senate.
Everyone who is a Democrat or liberal leaning needs to vote for the Democratic nominee, that should be everyones focus.
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)I again wonder, what the point is of your defeatism? You surely must know that if you are doing this in your everyday life, you stand a very high chance of depressing the vote. Surely that is not an intended consequence?
33taw
(2,450 posts)I am not defeated, you asked my point. Here it is, wasting time getting all giddy about a lower court ruling is just that - a waste of time. When the SC rules in our favor, Ill get all jazzed. We would be better of spending our time promoting our values and democratic candidates in 2020.
You certainly can put me on block if I offend you. Also, no need to scream at me with the bold writing.
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)Some may just be "cup- empty" type personalities. Others have, on occasion been found to be intentionally disrupting--particularly when they discount even those with far more experience than any of us in related matters. That you are neither, is good to know. I'm glad that you clarified and I thank you for that.
The post was meant to uplift some DUers who have been reacting with some degree of despondency at some of the RW tactics, spin, and intentional efforts to delay any accountability. I do believe there is hope there. We all have to strike a balance between being unrealistic and giving up. There is a wide middle ground there and that's what I hope to reinforce.
33taw
(2,450 posts)Democratic voters during the special and general elections in 2018. A previous vote percentage of 35 % Democratic vs. 65% Republican dropped to 50% both with republicans winning by a single vote locally. Thankfully, both elections resulted in Democratic victories at the Supreme Court and State Government levels. While we had one defeat, the main issue was messaging by the candidates. Hopefully, that lesson has been learned and wont happen again.
hlthe2b
(102,579 posts)33taw
(2,450 posts)We need to focus on gleaning a small percentage of votes from rural counties (in WI) and increasing voter turnout in metro communities. This will help us win. I think turning around the rural communities will be difficult, but we can get small victories to help us out. It is basically what Cambridge Analytics did for Trump - they found places where they could focus on getting small numbers to add up to big wins and then depressed the metro voters through messaging.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They do have to grapple with the legal issues and write an opinion. It's not just pulling a lever.
33taw
(2,450 posts)We lost the Supreme Court in 2016. Trump did not appoint centrists who might lean liberal. He appointed hard line conservatives. We may have some victories, but the courts wont save us from Trump. There is a reason McConnell is ramming through so many Judgeships that have been open for years.
itcfish
(1,828 posts)This should be interesting!
WyattKansas
(1,648 posts)Seriously, that is Trump's expert legal opinion.