In 5 minutes, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases that will answer the question Benjamin Franklin asks of every American generation: whether we can keep our republic.
Livestream here: c-span.org/video/?471675-…
Livestream here: c-span.org/video/?471675-…
Breyer's pissed. He woke up pissed, found he was out of cream for his coffee, got more pissed, then dialed into this argument.
He even said WATERGATE was too recent to be precedential.
Which: I have 8,000 different flavors of "??????"
Which: I have 8,000 different flavors of "??????"
Trump's lawyer's argument is an interesting and dangerous one: that while Congress has oversight of federal AGENCIES, it has no such authority over the (constitutionally co-equal) president himself.
What's aggravating about Strawbridge's calm warnings about the intrusiveness of an overreaching Congress: the only real examples of such overreach are by Republicans (Whitewater/Lewinski/Benghazi). And Trump is sui generis, tyranny-wise: he NEEDS restraint!
Now the U.S. Solicitor General is up.
Can we please pause to ask why the top appellate lawyer of the United States is playing any role at all in a subpoena over the personal documents of someone before they became president?
Can we please pause to ask why the top appellate lawyer of the United States is playing any role at all in a subpoena over the personal documents of someone before they became president?
Notorious RBG: "How did that work out in the Paula Jones..." (out of time/cut off).
Breyer's turn; he picks up the Paula Jones example. #wolfpacking
Breyer's turn; he picks up the Paula Jones example. #wolfpacking
Kagan now grilling Wall (govt's lawyer) about Paula Jones case.
(Jones case – a sexual harassment case vs. then-Pres Clinton – keeps coming up bec it, like Trump's financial records at issue here, involved private, pre-presidency conduct.)
(Jones case – a sexual harassment case vs. then-Pres Clinton – keeps coming up bec it, like Trump's financial records at issue here, involved private, pre-presidency conduct.)
Wow. The govt's lawyer is arguing that committees can't issue subpoenas without votes of the full House.
Fuuuuuuuuuuck that.
Next president needs to clean house at DOJ. Next AG needs to wield a broadsword.
Fuuuuuuuuuuck that.
Next president needs to clean house at DOJ. Next AG needs to wield a broadsword.
Douglas Letter, House of Representatives' general counsel is up. Pelosi handpicked him in Jan., + he's got appellate chops: "Letter spent 40 years at the Department of Justice and served as director of the Civil Division Appellate Staff." cnn.com/2019/10/17/pol…
The famously-silent Clarence Thomas is unusually active in questioning. Theory: Ginny has made it clear she'll go full Lysistrata if Trump loses.
RBG: asks House counsel articulate a limiting principle to prevent congressional committees from harassing presidents. Letter: cites previous precedents allowing courts to make case-by-case determinations limiting scope (which of course is common in ordinary litigation).
Letter to Breyer on global House authorization of these subpoenas: full House gave subpoena power to committees, then full House again ratified these specific subpoenas (after they were challenged).
I wish he'd also argue that Const. gives each House auth. to make its own rules.
I wish he'd also argue that Const. gives each House auth. to make its own rules.
Alito correctly noting that House Ways & Means chair Neal's statement of justification for seeking Trump's tax records was obviously pretextual (something I noted at the time). An unforced error by Democrats that's going to hurt us.
This prediction manifesting in real time before SCOTUS right now:
... And here's what's at stake:
( c @darinp2)
( c @darinp2)
@darinp2 Letter's on the defensive here over potential Congressional invasion of presidential privacy. I wish he'd go on offense by noting the alternative evil to "Congress harassing a poor president" is "a tyrannical POTUS rendering Congress (+ SCOTUS) powerless, thus ending democracy."
@darinp2 Damn. Breyer's undercutting Letter on the burden the subpoenas impose on the president. Raises the spectre of a future McCarthy addressing similarly broad subpoenas to a future FDR. Letter not answering his concern.
@darinp2 Breyer's last colloquy makes it pretty clear: SCOTUS majority will rule the Mazars + Deutsche subpoenas are overbroad +/or procedurally defective. ...
@darinp2 ... Q is whether Roberts can convince the RWers to stop there, or whether there will be concurrences also supporting the full presidential immunity Trump seeks.
@darinp2 Every time Kavanaugh speaks, he begins with a formulaic "thank you" and recognition of the CJ that sounds more like an advocate's requisite "and may it please the court" than anything a judge usually says.
Agree 100%. Letter accepted the ground Strawbridge offered (the poss. of congressional misconduct) instead of claiming his own turf (the far more dangerous possibility of PRESIDENTIAL misconduct + whether Congress retains the ability to restrain a tyrant).
Mazars/Deutsche cases submitted. Now the Court's hearing the related-but-different New York case (whether a state, rather than Congress, can obtain Trump's financial records).
Trump's lawyer Sekulow (whom we all learned to loathe during impeachment) charges out, basically assuming that letter just lost the previous argument and saying of that his case should ride those coattails.
And again, Thomas is engaging counsel. Dude's spent YEARS AT A TIME never asking one Q. But this interests him.
RBG: if Paula Jones had sued Clinton in state court, would he have had absolute immunity (when he didn't have such immunity when sued in federal court)? Sekulow: basically, yes. He's a one-man branch of govt., + so "temporarily" immune.
Sekulow: there are thousands of district attorneys; what if they ask brought charges against a prez?
Breyer: there are millions of women; couldn't they all sue a prez for sexual harassment?
(Note: with Trump as prez, that's not necessarily a hypothetical.)
Breyer: there are millions of women; couldn't they all sue a prez for sexual harassment?
(Note: with Trump as prez, that's not necessarily a hypothetical.)
Note for non-lawyers listening to these (historic! Live! My god! Such a treasure!) SCOTUS oral arguments: the justices' Qs to counsel aren't just Qs; they're also Qs/arguments/challenges to EACH OTHER. (Remember, law is taught Socratically: Qs ARE statements.)
C-Span TV cut away from the Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Vance. Listen to them here: c-span.org/video/?471676-…
Kavanaugh asks Sekulow about statute of limitations (ie, what if a stature expires during a president's "temporary" immunity, making it permanent). Trump's lawyer fumbles.
Now Noel Francisco, the Solicitor General of the U.S., is up. Roberts invites him to disagree w/ Trump's private lawyer; Francisco laughs uproariously: "you think there's a hair's breadth of diff between Trump's private lawyers and those of us at DOJ? Oh, you sweet summer child!"
(OK, Francisco didn't SAY that, but he TOTALLY said that.)
RBG now aligning the 10th Amendment against the Supremacy Clause, because Republicans no longer are conservatives.
RBG now aligning the 10th Amendment against the Supremacy Clause, because Republicans no longer are conservatives.
OK, this is a more objective analysis than mine above:
Francisco arguing that state AG should have to demonstrate "special need," ie, that the info sought is really needed for a charging decision.
Which this subpoena satisfies on its face. How ELSE could a prosecutor investigate tax fraud/money laundering without seeing financials?
Which this subpoena satisfies on its face. How ELSE could a prosecutor investigate tax fraud/money laundering without seeing financials?
And as to "unduly burdening" the president (which Francisco's arguing now): a subpoena to third parties is LEAST burdensome on the prez.
Sotomayor pwning Francisco r.n. on a related issue: that ordinary rules already address his concerns, so why invent a new "special need" test?
Sotomayor pwning Francisco r.n. on a related issue: that ordinary rules already address his concerns, so why invent a new "special need" test?
Now up: Carey Dunne, NY County DA's office General Counsel.
Which: interesting that a DA has a general counsel. Sort of a DA'sA. #words
Which: interesting that a DA has a general counsel. Sort of a DA'sA. #words
Alternative theory: Thomas has bad teeth and so is embarrassed to open his mouth in front of an audience, but actually is quite extroverted and intellectually curious and is downright gleeful at doing argument by phone. #not
RBG joins conservatives in expressing concern about thousands of local DAs having the ability to charge a sitting president. (Which: legit. Think of all the crap small-town, RWNJ prosecutors might charge the next Dem prez with. "Hard cases make bad law.")
The lawyer for NY is VERY good, btw.
Dear C-SPAN and everyone else: the SCOTUS arguments on whether our 230-year-old federal republican form of government will be replaced by a periodic but otherwise absolute and unified monarchy are more important than the COVID hearing don't @ me.
Wait hang on did Dunne just refer to "a distractable president"?
Arguments keep popping up today in which Trumpies/RW justices refer to executive priv cases, + the good guys distinguish them. Why? ...
... Bec. SOME protection for presidents is almost guaranteed; Q is whether the Court will base any variety of presidential immunity on the need to avoid undue burden/harassment (legit) or on something more authoritarian.
"I don't know how good this Court is about predicting consequences of some of our decisions." -Alito, being truthful a.f. but not in the way he thinks. (Example: Roberts' opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting the Civil Rights Act bec. racism supposedly has been defeated.)
I've enjoyed the extent to which the justices have ignored the Renfield-like toady Sekulow during questioning, and am just sad that fair play obligated Roberts to let the rancid assferret sum up.
Aaaaand... the Vance case has been submitted.
Wow. I've been a lawyer since 1987. You Youngs may not realize how astounding it is, what a gift it is, to be permitted to listen to oral arguments in key constitutional cases as they occur.
Wow. I've been a lawyer since 1987. You Youngs may not realize how astounding it is, what a gift it is, to be permitted to listen to oral arguments in key constitutional cases as they occur.
