A rare chance to 'listen-in' on SCOTUS

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-cases-phone-coronavirus_n_5eac8a02c5b6995f1400d918

One wonders if Clarence Thomas will go silent again, still "ashamed of his Geechee accent" and stupid-ass questions.

May 12th will be the biggee.

Here's how to witness Trump's ultimate unraveling live:

Quote :

How to listen to Supreme Court arguments

• What: The Supreme Court hears arguments by telephone in Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank; Trump v. Vance
  
• Date: Tuesday, May 12
  
• Time: 10 a.m. ET
  
• Online stream: Live on CBSN — in the player above and on your [url=https://www.cbsnews.com/app/#link=%7B"role":"standard","href":"https://www.cbsnews.com/apps/","target":"","absolute":"","linkText":"mobile or streaming device"%7D]mobile or streaming device[/url]
  

Or here:
https://cdn.jwplayer.com/players/XGngqbNj-poE3f2TR.html

Quote :

So, what information is actually being sought in these subpoenas at the center of Tuesday's arguments?


All are seeking similar, but not identical, financial records, largely from before Trump became president. And they were issued not to Trump, but directly to Deutsche Bank and Mazars USA, the bank and accounting firm that he and his family do much of their business with.

"Deutsche Bank is sitting on a trove of records ... Trump's innermost financial secrets," says David Enrich, business investigations editor at The New York Times and author of Dark Towers, a book about Trump and Deutsche Bank. He says that among the documents are not only Trump's tax returns but also "balance sheet information, income statements ... who his business partners are ... which he has spent years trying to keep hidden from public view."

Trump has taken out multibillion-dollar loans from Deutsche Bank, but the relationship extends beyond that. The bank also managed his assets and "provided matchmaking services that connected Trump with wealthy individuals, including some very wealthy, well-connected Russians who were looking to invest in American real estate," Enrich says.

Mazars and Deutsche Bank have not objected to complying with the subpoenas. Instead, Trump stepped in to ask the courts to block them from complying.

Wow, even Alito and Kavanaugh are reaming the president's counsel.  Thomas is speaking!  And Ginsburg, for all her recent medical issues, sounds very sharp and coherent.

The justices are drawing distinctions, or exploring if there are any distinctions, between the present case and Nixon's and Clinton's grand jury testimony.  In those cases, the president was ruled not above the law, and not immune from subpoena.  It sounds very much, to me, like they're going to rule against Trump.

Thomas's questions, though spoken cogently and coherently, are mostly entirely originalist and entirely irrelevant to this case.  He asked one counsel what the first presidential subpoena was.  I mean, who the fuck cares?  Is he just trying to sound like a professor quizzing his students?  It has absolutely zero bearing.

Jay Sekulow summarizes that all investigation of the president or his finances, even prior to the election, constitute "harassment."  We'll see what the justices think of THAT bullshit.

I’ve been wondering lately what the chances are that SCOTUS will weigh in, and rule on Donald’s financial records before the election.

Generally the court studiously avoids rulings which could affect elections. Generally they are loathe to insert themselves into partisan politics. This was certainly true before the Scalia/Thomas era of court activism, where they’ve been much more willing to put a finger (or a ten-ton weight) on the scales in favor of conservative causes.

Roberts, and now Kavanaugh, have also swayed the court toward activism. I think, in Roberts’ case, his motivating issues have been less party politics and more protecting the Court’s independence.

But Trump is a new wild card in the mix. Despite Thomas and Alito, the majority may feel Trump presents a unique clear and present danger, and MIGHT actually decide to decide before the election. I could see it happen. We shall see.

The John Roberts court continues to try to play both sides against the middle.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mueller-supreme-court-blocked-grand-jury_n_5ec5934bc5b68166292959ea

It's a victory for Trump, but a small one. I mean, it's not like the House was likely to reopen the impeachment inquiry.

I actually see this as an indicator that the financial records decision will probably go the other way.  You know, to appear "impartial."

NoCoPilot wrote:

I’ve been wondering lately what the chances are that SCOTUS will weigh in, and rule on Donald’s financial records before the election.

I hope Ruth Bader Ginsburg has professional protection.  There are persons at risk of exposure through Donald's records that might do ANYTHING to protect themselves.

Sounds like Roberts and Kavanaugh are not exactly best buds.  As everyone predicted, Kavanaugh continues to throw logic and impartiality out the window in order to advance the Koch brothers' agenda.

Hobby Lobby just got their asses kicked.

One of the other claimants has a suspicious-sounding name.

SCOTUS has eight cases yet to announce their decisions on, including:

1. Trump's financial records, which is the biggie
   
   
2. Faithless electors, which would address Greg Palast's nightmare scenario
   
   
3. Obamacare contraceptive mandate, and the court just ruled in favor of women's rights in an unrelated case
   

FOR the Constitution in the faithless electors debate.

AGAINST women in the Obamacare contraceptive mandate.


The Roberts Court continues to waffle -- evidence of a Court divided by ideological differences more than guided by Law or Justice.

Trump's financial records are still about to drop.  Mary Trump's book, starting at page 185, explains what'll be in them.

This could be pivotal.

SCOTUS just ruled Trump is not immune from New York's subpoena.

Let the fireworks begin.

They ruled Cyrus Vance can see Trump's finances.  Indictments will follow, either before he leaves office or after.

The SC also ruled against Congress subpoenaing these records, sending the case back to lower courts.  Apparently on procedural, rather than constitutional basis.  IOW Congress can come back with more specific reasons for wanting them, and it'll be legal.

Hah! Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted against Trump.

David Enrich, author of "Dark Towers" about Deutschebank, says the bank records probably won't come out until well after the election.

Neal Katyal disagrees. Says we'll probably see them before November.

The SCOTUS ruling was 7-2.  You can guess the dissenters.

Trump TV is not reporting this story at all. Go figure.

The new president has grounds now for impeaching Thomas and Alito. They have just ruled, in their dissenting opinions, in favor of politics and against the law.

That makes them ineligible for a legal career, and ESPECIALLY one on the highest court.

Rachel is agreeing with Neal Katyal, she thinks the dirt will be made public before the election. Cyrus Vance has been working on this case for well over two years, and may have lots of evidence on hand and ready to move forward.

One can hope.

Looks like Neal Katyal and Rachel Maddow may be right.  Yay.

Didn't candidate Trump say something about not holding Supreme Court nominees to a litmus test? Well, he's thrown that out the window too.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, our nation is on your frail shoulders.

Amy Coney Barrett will win easy confirmation before the election.

Roe v. Wade is gone.

Obamacare is gone.


Regardless of who wins the election(s).  This last-minute replacement is the Republicans' acknowledgment that their party is deeply unpopular.  Dems will rule the House, the Senate and the White House for a generation, after what the GOP has done in 2020-2021.  State legislatures will turn deeply blue.  The Grand Old Party will consist of a couple of toothless clerks and a mailing list, but no candidates and no donors.

Why?  Why are they willing to self-immolate in order to tilt the courts (not just the Supreme) back into the 1920s?  Doing so will only motivate the other two branches of government to action, to codify "the liberal agenda" into law.  The courts are not all-powerful.

But they are DURABLE.  Lifetime appointments for somebody like Barrett, 48 years old, means the courts will still be fighting the Legislative and Executive branches 30 years from now.  Republicans are playing the long game.  They know, from history, that 30 years of power will cause the Democrats to overstep their power and become deeply unpopular.  Around 2050 the Republicans will come back into power, and their courts will still be waiting for them.

They know this because it's the Democrats' play book.  They did it in 1964-1967, with Thurgood Marshall, desegregation, gay rights, Roe, union organizing, environmental protections, and all the rest of "the liberal agenda."

According to Barrett, gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

But a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body is not.

"Constitutional originialists" like Barrett are like biblical scholars -- the bible/constitution is the word of god, and must be followed to the letter.

Except like xtians everywhere, they pick & choose which paragraphs to highlight and which to ignore.

Women couldn't vote when the constitution was written.

Adulterers have to be stoned to death.

Black people are 3/5th of a person, and are listed as property.

As much as I think Barrett is unqualified to be a judge (of any kind) due to her extremist views and lack of respect for precedent, the law and science, I do concede that it is within the president's enumerated powers to nominate her, and it is within the Senate's enumerated powers to confirm her.

In Merrick Garland's case, the Democrats did not hold the Senate.  As long as the president and the Senate are of the same party, it's within their rights to pack the court with unqualified ideologues.

Not very smart, but within their rights.  After Barrett is confirmed, the Senate will hold huge a Democratic majority after the election, and for years to come.

And impeachment of a couple judges for misconduct, or expanding the court beyond nine judges, is not out of the question.

Although the former would be easier to justify.