Anyone listening?
They've been deep in the weeds of the statutory language, but now they're back arguing whether this is a clash between the branches.
It isn't. The legislative and executive branches are in agreement.
Trump (as former POTUS) is not a branch of government.
They've been deep in the weeds of the statutory language, but now they're back arguing whether this is a clash between the branches.
It isn't. The legislative and executive branches are in agreement.
Trump (as former POTUS) is not a branch of government.
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1465689191015227394
The conflict is between the former and current president, not between the branches.
Issue: So what is the role of the courts?
Can the court overrule the incumbent president on behalf of a former president?
Issue: So what is the role of the courts?
Can the court overrule the incumbent president on behalf of a former president?
Here we get these hypotheticals. What if four former presidents disagree with the incumbent president. (Implication: What if the current president is totally off his rocker?)
Answer: There is still no clash between the branches.
Answer: There is still no clash between the branches.
In Nixon's case, he claimed a personal interest in the documents. He said he owned the presidential docs.
Since then, Congress passed the PRA saying that the docs belong do the government.
So Trump has no private interest in the docs.
Since then, Congress passed the PRA saying that the docs belong do the government.
So Trump has no private interest in the docs.
After Trump's presidency, I think most of us react differently to the hypothetical of a president who is off his rocker and starts releasing docs from the previous administration to be a jerk.
Next question: What if people in Congress start leaking these docs.
Next question: What if people in Congress start leaking these docs.
The answer being given is that a person who leaks can be disciplined.
They are relying on some language in the Nixon SCOTUS case which says that the former POTUS has some say in the matter ⤵️
They are relying on some language in the Nixon SCOTUS case which says that the former POTUS has some say in the matter ⤵️
https://twitter.com/lizzieshore/status/1465726480877424643
Good question: Does the decision entirely depend on whether he is likely to win on the merits?
Actually, the judge threw the government a softball.
(Remember, the issue on appeal is whether the lower court erred in not issuing a preliminary injunction.)
Actually, the judge threw the government a softball.
(Remember, the issue on appeal is whether the lower court erred in not issuing a preliminary injunction.)
It isn't enough to show that Trump would be likely to win on the merits. There is more. And Trump hasn't met these elements (I've written about this elsewhere)
Another softball: Should the court worry about getting involved in this?
Another softball: Should the court worry about getting involved in this?
The court wants to know how to weigh the competing interests (former v. incumbent POTUS)
The court acknowledges that the incumbent has (at a minimum) greater weight.
Government: A former president should be allowed to block something a current president's determination.
The court acknowledges that the incumbent has (at a minimum) greater weight.
Government: A former president should be allowed to block something a current president's determination.
Court: Does this mean the incumbent president ALWAYS win? If not, what is the test to be applied?
Government: The Court should "review deferentially" the incumbent's decision.
Court: How does a court evaluate the president's executive decision.
Government: The Court should "review deferentially" the incumbent's decision.
Court: How does a court evaluate the president's executive decision.
Government: Can't be "de novo" law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novo
and should only block the president in extreme circumstances.
If the incumbent's decision is "rational on its face" it's done.
and should only block the president in extreme circumstances.
If the incumbent's decision is "rational on its face" it's done.
Yes, sorry.
Government: A former president should NOT be allowed to block something a current president's determination.
How do people Listen, Type, and Think all at the same time? 🤔
Government: A former president should NOT be allowed to block something a current president's determination.
How do people Listen, Type, and Think all at the same time? 🤔
https://twitter.com/ViewsPlusNews/status/1465734940293804040
The court threw another softball:
If the court tries to overrule or second guess the executive, doesn't that CREATE a separation of power problem?
The government argues that in this case, we don't need to reach a balancing test.
If the court tries to overrule or second guess the executive, doesn't that CREATE a separation of power problem?
The government argues that in this case, we don't need to reach a balancing test.
(Government says that tests occur when there is a conflict between Congress and the executive branch.)
Trump's lawyer is now asking for time (14 days) to go to SCOTUS.
Do they know they'll lose?
(Judge thinks that's funny)
Trump's lawyer is now asking for time (14 days) to go to SCOTUS.
Do they know they'll lose?
(Judge thinks that's funny)
And that's a wrap.
The honorable court is now adjourned. If you are on the East Coast, go get lunch.
I'll get another salted-caramel flavored coffee (this works for all time zones)
(I do have writing deadlines!)
The honorable court is now adjourned. If you are on the East Coast, go get lunch.
I'll get another salted-caramel flavored coffee (this works for all time zones)
(I do have writing deadlines!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
