Alito is the worst. I mean both as a lawyer and judge. #TrumpTaxReturns
PS/ Alito actually asked a prosecutor whether—in the absence of a POTUS showing *any* burden in him turning over tax records already compiled—SCOTUS couldn't force a prosecutor to wait until the POTUS leaves office. This man *knows better*. He understands criminal investigations.
PS2/ Fortunately, under questioning by Justice Sotomayor, the New York Attorney General had a chance to in *detail* underscore how absolutely *insane* Alito's questioning was—and completely counter to *everything* Alito says about prosecutors when the defendant is poor and black.
PS3/ I'd respect Justice Alito more if he simply said that he has a lifetime appointment and therefore America can't do anything about the fact that he thinks Republican presidents have absolute immunity. His disingenuous, amoral posturing is humiliating and frankly nauseating.
NOTE/ Sorry, to clarify, I didn't mean to say New York Attorney General. Dunne is from the NYCDA.
NOTE2/ I'll add that Dunne made catastrophic strategic errors in his answering of questions. I agree with Gorsuch that Dunne gave the impression (frankly an incredible one) that he *agreed* with the DOJ position. I have no idea why he took this approach. It's thoroughly puzzling.
NOTE3/ Dunne is right to say a POTUS must exhibit an Article II "burden" first, but he is profoundly wrong to concede that a prosecutor should have to show (I can't believe I'm even saying this) that *there is a time value to evidence in a criminal investigation*. I mean *Jesus*.
NOTE4/ Think about the *gall* undergirding that component of a supposed "heightened need" standard: what kind of *effed up criminal probe* could just as easily occur *8 years* later than it is? Would Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and others let *anyone* but a POTUS claim such a thing?
NOTE5/ The fact that we're even *having* this conversation underscores that the conservatives on SCOTUS are saying Trump is above the law *simply because he's president*. Not because a subpoena actually inconveniences him, but because he can commit crimes with a certain impunity.
NOTE6/ The moment "couldn't you investigate this case 8 years from now just as easily, without any degradation of evidence?" becomes part of *any* standard set by SCOTUS, we are saying—flatly—that the whole of American rule of law must be turned *upside down* for President Trump.
NOTE7/ I feel sad for journalists who cover SCOTUS. I'd never do it. Because—candidly—it's a joke. SCOTUS today (I'm not talking about SCOTUS 40 years ago) is a purely political body that simply does a good job of going through the motions of pretending to be a body of attorneys.
NOTE8/ My point is that I still see legal analysts predicting how the court will come out based on the law. But is that *really* where we are now? Post-Bush/Gore? It seems to me that in the *really big* and *very public* cases, if you know the litigants you can guess the outcome.
NOTE9/ What I see here is a 5-4 vote declaring Trump America's God-Emperor—with Roberts assigning himself the opinion so he can draw the declaration of Trump as America's God-Emperor in super responsible-sounding terms a few suburban moderates can be punked into feeling OK about.
NOTE10/ Let me add that—if rule of law prevails—I agree with those who say this will be a 6-3 vote in favor of America remaining a democracy. But the questioning I heard was profoundly concerning, i.e. from Roberts and Gorsuch. I just can't have *confidence* we escape a 5-4 here.
