Although the decision that Congressional subpoenas for Trump financials serve legitimate legislative purposes can be appealed in the Circuit, expect this one to head to SCOTUS.
And review of decisions regarding subpoenas is typically very deferential to the decision in the district court. SCOTUS recently held a decision regarding an EEOC subpoena could only be reversed if the judge abused her discretion.
So it’s likely SCOTUS could decide there is no reason to take the issue on appeal, unless 4 judges see something novel in Congressional subpoenas to Presidents. (Sorry about the lapse into appellate procedure)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/JD Vance will sacrifice women’s rights given the opportunity. There is no doubt about where he stands on abortion: he is the guarantee that no matter what comes out of Trump's mouth while campaigning, he will support a national ban on abortion if reelected,
2/Vance’s position has long been that he’s “100% Pro-Life.” He scrubbed that off of his website recently, but you can still find it on the Way Back Machine. web.archive.org/web/2022040715…
3/More recently Vance claims he, like Trump, believes states should make most of the decisions. It’s reminiscent of SCOTUS Justices who promised under oath at confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was unshakable law & then promptly overturned it.
1/One of my very smart friends pointed out last night that Joe Biden has gutted so many of Trump’s “arguments." They are gone in one fell swoop: President Biden’s age, Hunter Biden, the whole “Biden crime family” corruption allegations. All out the door.
2/ Nothing says women refuse to accept second-class citizenship like electing one. Nothing.
3/ It's now the prosecutor v. the convicted felon for President of the United States. Don’t believe anyone who tells you Trump is going to change. Remember all those moments when he “became truly presidential”? Trump is who he is, and that’s the one constant in his universe.
1/Public education is important. Well-educated citizens are more employable & prepared to compete in the 21st Century economy. Education reduces crime & improves public health & health equity. So of course, Project 2025 eliminates the Dept. Of Education. joycevance.substack.com/p/what-happens…
2/The Education Chapter in Project 2025 is 44 pages long. They are counting on the fact that no one will read it. So we looked at some of the details in Civil Discourse, my newsletter:
3/In the banal language of conservative policy, Project 2025 spells an end to public education in this country. It spells the establishment of religion, even at the college level, in ways that are inimical to creating a population that is taught to think, not what to think.
1/A week ago, Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation & architect of Project 2025, responded to Democrats plans to take on Project 2025. Roberts said, “Project 2025 will not be stopped,” & that Democrats are “more than welcome to try” to stop it.
2/On Tuesday, Roberts was on Steve Bannon’s War room. It was minus Bannon, of course, because he’s in federal prison. Roberts told a guest host: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be"
3/Is Roberts threatening people who speak out with violence? What if they protest? What if they vote? He’s saying it will get bloody. The more we learn about Project 2025 and the people behind it, the worse it gets. substack.com/redirect/f5e68…
1/ The more I read the immunity opinion, the clearer it becomes that the conservative majority is more concerned with concentrating power in the hands of the president than in how a president might abuse that power. Presidents as kings.
2/There is absolute immunity for a president acting within his constitutional authority and up to the full extent of the outer perimeter of whatever the Court says that authority is. Then, it gets even more troubling.
3/Presidents get “presumptive immunity" for their implied authority, what the Court characterizes as the "Twilight Zone" of presidential authority. They don't have to decide if it applies "at this stage" which suggests they expect further appeals once the district court does, but
1/There are a few bright lines for today's immunity decision. Trump's lawyer conceded at oral argument that they were only asking for immunity for *official acts* not private ones, what I've often viewed as President Trump vs. Candidate Trump. Assuming the Court agrees, they may
2/provide a test for lower courts to use in distinguishing between official and private acts. That's likely a fact-based test, which will require judges to let parties argue the evidence, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both. It's also possible that the Court will decide that...
3/some official conduct merits immunity-a president who orders a strike on foreign enemies based on the best advice of advisors in a time-constrained situation & one result is killing an American citizen, which is a fed'l crime. The Court might decide there is a narrow band of...