Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Here's the Mazars opinion: supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Trump lost. The case has been remanded back to the lower courts. As with Vance, only Alito and Thomas dissented.

Whether we see them before the election depends on how fast things move.

https://twitter.com/TryChick/status/1281234382792142855

About the election: As I posted last night, I never believed that this would sway the election. There has been high level reporting that Trump cheats, launders money . . .

. . . and has deep ties, both financially and ideologically, to the Kremlin.

His supporters have seen the same evidence and don't care.

The GOP Senators and Congressmen know the facts and have shielded him anyway. . .

https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1281077350201876480

. . . the idea that Trump's financial will be revealed and the Trump cult will dissolve flies in the face of everything we've seen.

What's at stake in these cases is something much larger. Trump and his team argued that these subpoenas were harassment and that the president. . .

. . . should not have to disclose anything he doesn't want to disclose. Trump's lawyers actually argued in court that allowing Congress to subpoena the president "undermines" the office of the presidency.

As I said last night, at heart these cases are about balance of power. . .

. . . Team Trump has consistently argued that they are above the law, nobody can subpoena Trump or pry into his affairs at all.

If we would have gotten a ruling upholding this silly "unitary executive theory" that the president can hide anything he wants and Congress. . .

. . . is completely powerless, we would have been in deep trouble. The Court could have eroded the power of prosecutors and Congress while making the president untouchable.

Many doomsdayers predicted they would.

They didn't.

It was a 7-2 opinion.

Kavanaugh joined Ginsburg.

What is much more immediate and more likely to sway voters is Trump's handling of the pandemic, his open embrace of white supremacy, and his obvious mental unfitness for the office.

Anyone who sees these things and supports him anyway is not going to be swayed . . .

. . . by more evidence that Trump cheats, lies, and launders money.

I have a lot of respect for Ginsburg. When she was appointed, she was considered a moderate. She is an incrementalist and a proceduralist. It's actually like her to want procedures followed . . .

. . . now that I see the line up (7-2, with Kavanaugh joining Ginsburg) and understanding something about how the Supreme Court works, I know why it took so long.

There were lots of discussions over to get to a 7-2 lineup.

I read key parts. Now I have to go read it all 🤓

I love you all, but sometimes it's hard.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision, they should be thinking ahead. What will this decision mean? How should such matters be settled in the future?

The Court got this one right.

We get a 7-2 loss for Trump. . .

. . . what about everyone who for 3 years told me that the Court is corrupted and will allow Trump to make himself a dictator?

Here we get a case in which the Court specifically rejects the "Trump is king" theory.

Is that good enough?

NOOOOOOOOOO . . .

. . . okay, back to reading the decision 🤓

*will try not to look at my mentions so I don't get distracted*

I read the decision.

Here are my "Over the Cliff Notes" (name suggested by a clever follower) for people who want to dig in.

All my followers are nerds, right? 🤓

Question presented: Do the subpoenas exceed the authority of the House under the Constitution?

Team Trump argued that the balance of power means Congress cannot subpoena his personal papers without meeting an extraordinarily high bar, which Congress didn’t meet.
static1.squarespace.com/static/57a3592…
Basically, it's the "Nobody can Subpoena me Cuz I'm the Prez" argument.

Team Trump argued that the test for whether he can be subpoenaed should be evaluated by the test given in Nixon, that Congress must show “demonstrated, specific need,” and must show that the information is “critical” to a legislative purpose.

SCOTUS said nope, wrong comparison.

SCOTUS said the Nixon case was about private correspondences between the president and his advisors. This case is not about anything like that. These are financial and other records that can fall under no such privilege . . .

The Court concluded that requiring Congress to meet the elevated standard suggested by Team Trump would “risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities. . . “ and would give “short shrift to Congress’s important interests in conducting inquiries. . .”

"It's the proper duty . . . might involve the president in appropriate cases."⤵️

In other words, nope. The president is not immune by virtue of being president.

Bye-bye absolute immunity—Trump’s favorite theory that sensible people knew was totally bogus.

At the same time, the Court rejected the idea that Congress has unlimited subpoena power for any of the president’s personal papers for fear unlimited powers could “aim to harass the President.”

(Imagine Benghazi on steroids if we have a Democratic president and GOP House)

SCOTUS talked about how historically, these matters have been worked out between the executive and legislative branches.

We meet our friends Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, and Burr illustrating the spirit of compromise in which the branches should engage.

The Court didn’t want to make a blanket statement that Congress can have whatever it wants for fear this would end the spirit of compromise in the future: Congress could walk away from any negotiation, having always the upper hand. . .

. . . even though, in this case, it was Team Trump who flatly refused to compromise with the House. But I digress.

As long as I'm digressing, Burr and Hamilton didn't always compromise. But that's a different story having nothing to do with Congressional subpoenas.

The Court distinguished this case from Nixon in that Nixon was about material that fell under executive privilege, defined as safeguarding the public interest in candid, confidential deliberations within the Executive Branch” and thus “fundamental to the operation of Government.”

The court said the Trump in this case is offered no such heightened protection because there was nothing in his financial records that could fall under "executive privilege."

The court offered this test for evaluating the subpoenas:

🔹The legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers
🔹No other sources provide Congress the information it needs (The President cannot be a general “case study”)
🔹Subpoena should be no broader than necessary to support the purpose

🔹and there shouldn't be too onerous a burden on the President, where burden on time and energy is not enough to stop a subpoena.

In other words, not a hard test to meet.

The court remanded to the lower court for them to apply this test.

Why remand? Because SCOTUS said the lower courts applied the wrong test.

Thomas dissented. Thomas said Congress should have no power for personal documents unless under the impeachment power. (That was kinda dumb because it will encourage more impeachments.)

Alito said the House should have an even heavier burden than the majority outlined. He said Congress must provide extensive details about the type of legislation they are considering, yadda yadda.

About the remand business: I practiced appellate law in CA for more than a decade.

My practice was limited to representing indigents on appeal from adverse rulings. I represented people appealing from criminal or dependency rulings.

It means my clients had lost at the trial level.

Reverse and remand was always a win. It was the most I hoped for.

It's pretty clear given what happened at the lower courts that when the matters are remanded, the outcome will be the same: Trump will lose.

What was the Supreme Court doing? Debunking both "absolute immunity" and "Congress can have anything it wants" arguments.

If we have a GOP Congress with the likes of Trey Gowdy and a Democratic President, you'll be very glad that Congress can't just get anything it wants.

What now?

The cases will go back to the lower courts. Trump will lose . . .

The idea of "absolute immunity" and an imperial presidency is dead. Rule of law will survive.

The president is not above the law.

Were you all taking notes for the Twitter Bar Exam?

This was a shock, yes.

Both of Trump's SCOTUS appointments shot down his "absolute immunity" argument.

Also a shock was 7-2. Ginsburg and Sotomayer

https://twitter.com/beerforme1962/status/1281344328334487554

(My explanation of remands doesn't fit here. Entirely different kind of cases.)

It's done. All the lower court has to do is apply the test. If they do that, there will be noting to appeal.

https://twitter.com/unclepeker/status/1281345687288975366