Thread by @ThatShockratees

As close to 100% chance as it gets for the Mazars subpoena ruling to be upheld. Not because of Garland, although I’m delighted for him to have the opportunity to participate. Because Judge Mehta was correct and DOJ/POTUS’s argument was baseless.

“But SCOTUS!” you cry. Nope.

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1130638160482971655

Remember that denial of certiorari (taking a pass on the case) leaves lower court’s ruling intact. Simplest/fastest method would be for SCOTUS to deny cert petition. Doubt they’ve got one vote, much less four, to grant it.

“But won’t 6 justices blindly vote with GOP?” Nope.

The only time I have seen that happen is in Bush v. Gore, which is famous among lawyers because it is RARE.

There is zero precedent to support DOJ’s argument, versus Mehta’s opinion, well-grounded in law and reason.

“But won’t SCOTUS just slow it for years?” Nope.

How have the predictions of those who don’t fully understand how our US courts work played out? Have the ppl who said “Every case will take years and years” been right or wrong about this Mazars subpoena, which is zipping through in a few weeks?

Meanwhile - look at track record.

Trump has won ONE court case out of all the cases his administration has generated. In contrast, he’s racked up consistent losses in every court, before every judge, regardless of party/appointment.

Where are the ppl who claim SCOTUS will bow before him getting their data?

From his one loss - the Muslim ban? Where outcome was (in my view) wrong, but also not surprising or inconsistent with long-standing precedential views of the 5 justices in question?

Here, in contrast, there is simply no basis to deny Congress its black-letter oversight right.

And SCOTUS would send a stronger message, ironically, by letting the case pass by, than by granting cert. The DC circuit is influential and respected nationwide. It’s almost a second SCOTUS in some types of cases.

So them’s my beans.

His one *WIN (not his one “loss”) doh