But the chief cuts off Strawbridge's answer pretty quickly.
This is a good question. Trump Judge Neomi Rao insisted that the House could only get Trump's financial records through an impeachment-related subpoena. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Strawbridge dodges, says Congress is engaging in "harassment" of the president. DRINK!
Breyer sounds pissed!
But Roberts cuts off Strawbridge before he answers. The justices do not have enough time to grill counsel today!
That's pretty much the whole case right there.
This is actually a pretty good question, but let's see where Gorsuch is going with it.
A really good question from Roberts which indicates his vote may be in play. (Always tough to tell, though.)
FYI Thomas genuinely does believe the president is a king. I strongly doubt his vote is in play here.
Again, RBG is just killing it today.
"You're distrusting Congress more than a cop on a beat."
Wall says the House's authorization was both "a rubber stamp and a blank check." That is ... a contestable position. But Kavanaugh doesn't challenge it.
Kavanaugh: "What about Watergate and Whitewater?"
Recall Kavanaugh's role in the Starr investigation.
"Your test is not much of a test. It's not a limitation. It doesn't seem in any way to take account" that we're talking about "the executive branch."
"That's not much protection," Alito says. "In fact, that's no protection."
He is right, and that's a great example of why Letter is not very good at this.
Letter regaining his composure under friendlier questioning. Still not very good.
It's a shame that Kagan has to eat up her limited time prodding Letter to explain the House's position more coherently.
"That's the concern I identified" from other justices' questions, Kavanaugh says. "I want to give you a chance" to explain "why it wouldn't spiral."
Now we're onto Vance, the tax returns case. Jay Sekulow, Trump's lawyer, is up first.
(Roberts is right. Sekulow's theory would hold out Trump entirely above the law.)
"Does it make a difference when a subpoena goes to a third party?"
These are both good questions.
"And if he shows undue burden," Breyer adds, "he wins, and otherwise not."
Why, she asks, shouldn't courts say: The president can make objections about "harassment and burden," and we will decide if they're true.
RBG with the federalism uppercut!
Dunne wisely says he doesn't really object.
Alito: "Your office is never requested by media in the NYC area to disclose confidential investigative materials?"
Dunne: "They ask all the time. The answer is no."
Dunne suggests that deposing a president for multiple days might cross the line. Again, he's making wise concessions.
We now live in a world where Thomas asks more questions than Breyer. What. Is. Going. On.
There is a good chance the court creates heightened standards for subpoenas issued by congressional committees and state prosecutors, then sends both cases back down so lower courts can apply the new standards.
Strong punt potential here, which benefits Trump.
But I couldn't count five votes for any one holding in either case.