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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ⤵️
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.)
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?
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.
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: 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.
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? 🤔
Here is what people are having a hard time accepting:
The Republicans are knowingly and actively shielding and supporting liars and lawbreakers because they want to destroy. The lies and lawbreaking are intended to destroy.
If anyone made these promises, that person lied⤵️
1/
It seems to me that this is based on a theory that goes like this: We had a lovely democracy and then along came the lawbreaking Republicans. Because they are breaking laws, we can solve the problem through the criminal justice system.
2/
Two things are happening right now on left media:
(1) People misunderstand the lies and lawbreaking on the right.
(2) People tell their own lies (what I've been calling rage-inducing simplifications) based on a faulty view of history and the nature of the problem.
3/
This is the problem. People think that the problem of right-wing extremism can be "fixed" and they're waiting for that to happen and demanding that someone fix the problem.
Now people believe that criminal indictments will "fix" the problem.
1/
If you think that criminal indictments will fix the problem and make the threat of right-wing extremism go away, of course you're frustrated and impatient.
All I can figure is that it comes from a very weird idea of history, that goes like this . . .
2/
At some point in our recent history, we had a lovely democracy, and then up rose a cabal of criminals.
Now, we just need to put those criminal in jail and the
problem will be fixed.
When was this lovely democracy? Before 1954?
Nope. We had racial segregation.
3/
This is an example of a rage-inducing simplification.
🔹It ignores ongoing investigations (actually pretends they're are not happening)
🔹It assumes unrealistic timelines
🔹It ignores the reality of how investigations occur
Mostly, it mindlessly repeats what other people say.
In a video that I link to here⤵️ @TimothyDSnyder talks about how mindlessly repeating Internet "triggers" endangers democracy by, basically, turning us into mindless repeaters of trigger phrases.
"Rule of law" doesn't mean that each transgression is punished. Quite the contrary. Due process and constitutional protections mean not every person who commits a crime gets prosecuted.
Just striving for precision here.
You meant: "Trump broke laws so I want him prosecuted."
What DOJ investigators need to do is put on blinders, follow the evidence where it leads (as they have said many times they are doing; see ⤵️for example) and ignore cries from partisans to prosecute political leaders.
The committee's mission statement includes working with other "entities" to avoid duplication of efforts."
It's also clear from their statement that they're looking beyond Jan. 6 to tie together what happened (meaning all parts of the conspiracy.) january6th.house.gov/about
It's a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and an ongoing coverup.