It’s on!

He'll take it to the SCOTUS where his picks will stop it.

They do it as a delaying tactic to see if they have some shot at something being "unconstitutional" (the only thing they can go to federal courts for).

It's the same thing that happened here in PA when the PA State Constitution required that Congressional Districts be drawn "contiguous", which the GOP did not do in 2010 when they controlled the line drawing for redistricting after the census... And then suddenly the GOP here started losing in the state courts due to their violation of the state Constitution with their gerrymandering, while a federal case was running parallel. The GOP appealed the federal case all the way to the SCOTUS after each federal court level rejected their arguments, with the SCOTUS finally refusing to hear their appeal because it was a state issue.

"States Rights™" and all.

supposedly were joining the Trump lawsuit to prevent release of the tax returns saying that because the DOJ memo says that Trump can't be prosecuted federally, he also can't be prosecuted at the state level.

in which the US Supreme Court said it was A-OK for presidents to be sued for actions that occurred before they became president.

will have no problem overturning precedent, if needed. That said, I don't think they'd rule that way on this case.

was a case sponsored by the conservatives/rw'ers/GOP. IIRC, George Conway was one of the "elves" who wrote the legal briefs.

I hear you about the argument regarding the double edged sword regarding "states rights", but isn't that what happened in Florida in 2000 where the SC over ruled Florida to recount its ballots?

I agree it is a delaying tactic, but I also would not discount the SC doing the wrong thing

just like the GOP here in PA.

There's quite a bit of settled law about certain state law and the federal Executive Branch.

And regarding the FL recount, the issue was supposedly dealing with the Electoral College (which is in the Constitution) and the "Equal Protection" clause (in the Constitution).

In this income tax case, they are trying to argue some sort of immunity for the Executive Branch to comply with anything.

When they don't agree with the law.

but then the SCOTUS would then have their record sullied by overtly cherry-picking "states rights". Some there might not care but I expect others there might. It's all a matter of what is "worth it" to them when it comes to their role as an separate independent co-equal branch of government - especially when it deals with a subject that isn't a "fuzzy social issue" (i.e., the "social issues" have prompted the federal courts to swing wildly back and forth regarding "rights" vs this case that essentially argues against the foundation of the federal system of 3 branches and their role providing a check/balance, along with the rights of the states to handle their own affairs and laws when they are not in violation of the national Constitution).

(and this isn't one of them); the court has to agree to hear a case. The party who wants to appeal files a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the other party gets to file an opposing brief. About 7,000 cert petitions are filed every year, but the court accepts only 100-150 cases to review.

has to be made public, and if state law can supersede that

... to get his returns published because he is/was running for president or some other national office - I.e. they are not seeking some kind of a public office disclosure requirement.

It’s an investigation by state law enforcement looking to enforce state laws for crimes that occurred before he was elected.

The SC could pre-empt state law here, but it would take some legal gymnastics and the disregarding of quite a bit of precedent, and it would set a bad precedent for future cases.

Could they do it? Sure. But it’s not a slam dunk that even this stacked SC would.

lose move up the chain in courts? Thought you had to have cause. How does trump get away with this? He just keeps appealing and winning an appeal?

compliance.

often that appeal is denied. But in this case the SCOTUS will probably do trump's bidding. Especially since the DOJ will also back him.
The SCOTUS just has to determine this deals with the Constitution.

Consitutional rights as "pResident" which he can typically relate to almost everything.

It's how fascism works.

He'll probably appeal it though. What with Barr claiming this President, and everyone he has ever touched since he was a baby, are immune to prosecution.

He has used that strategy before. I would not be surprised if he uses it again.

past Nov. 2020.
Big no win either way. The more they fight the more it looks like keeping information from Americans that need it to determine whom they will vote for. If there is nothing there, he wins. More likely, he is screwed.

or am I being too generous

If everything’s on the up ‘n’ up, then why are you trying to hide it?

He has everything to hide if he is putting up such a fight to keep his tax returns hidden.

Audit for 4 years, give me a break.

Many years...why didn't IRS nail him? And if he's lying, what hadn't IRS thought "hmmm" let's audit him? And, didn't he once get the biggest refund in the entire country?

It is obvious now that he means the opposite of what he said.

He has everything to hide! We are playing hide and seek.

As usual Dumpster should be tweeting and blasting this judge if it hasn't happened already LOL.

in the meantime, the taxes will be released anyway, even as they appeal.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Second Circuit granted the stay in order to allow it to hear the appeal.

The four part test for injunctive relief is applied in a variety of ways by courts. Sometimes they focus on all four factors, sometimes just a couple and sometimes only one. While the district court judge concluded there was no likelihood of success on the merits and no irreparable harm, an appeals court might disagree. It certainly might elect to stay the order until it considers, on appeal, the abstention and/or lack of likelihood of success on the merits claims.

It will be interesting to see how the Second Circuit handles this (and how quickly).

And after the Second Circuit rules, I would expect a further appeal to the Supremes, with a request for a stay. That request, in the first instance, would go to Ginsburg. She could grant, deny, or refer to the full court. My guess is that she would refer to the full court since an initial denial by her would only result in Trump's team going to one of the conservatives for a stay.

in his ruling, especially regarding the Dept of Justice memos that say the president cannot be indicted, that has not been adjudicated in court, and could very well go against them, opening up an entire can of worms for Trump.

The fact is, even if SCOTUS ruled unanimously that he must release them, he’d ignore the ruling. Do we really even have to question that Trump believes himself to be above the law? After all, he claims Article II of the Constitution gives him the right to do “whatever I want.”

firm, who have already been getting them ready for release.

No jurisdiction, I know, but every effort to tie this up for weeks will be made

He'll appeal to the second circuit which probably will delay enforcement of the subpoena while it considers the matter.

there is more than enough illegal crimes he has committed. Take him down.

Link to tweet

My question is why did the judge take a month to rule?

When they do it should be evident that the Democrats will then have the power to "overreach" and completely change the country back to pre-Trump standing and beyond.

Leaving the GOP with NO recourse to slow or stop the changes. The GOP with all of their extreme acts to support the lunatic in White House today are laying the groundwork for a significant swing to the left when they eventually lose control.

Of course, I would hope that the swing takes place sooner rather than later. But imagine how even a single change. Establishing a national healthcare plan for EVERY American. How that change would IMO make it much harder for the GOP to take it away if and when the pendulum swings back.

Then look at:
1. Reasonable gun laws.
2. A fairer tax system to benefit the poor and middle class.
3. Establish a voting system that is secure and open to ALL Americans.
4. Improvement of the national education systems K-4 year college degrees.
5. Changing Social Security taxes to expand it beyond the current $129,000 to a rate so the rich pay their fair share.
6. Improve and maintain the nation's infrastructure.
7. Establishing an immigration system that recognizes the benefit of immigrants to the country.
8. A national renewable energy policy.
9. A national plan to address climate change.
10. A balance SCOTUS and lower courts system.
And the list goes on.

IMO once the GOP lies have been proven to be just that LIES. Life for everyday Americans will be better. And they will still be able to own their guns. Have national healthcare. Have affordable education costs. Have a secure SS system to care for retirees and senior citizens. Have a safe infrastructure with safe roads and bridges. Once those things become part of every American's dream the lie of the GOP will not be easy to sell to the next generation.

before the Dems get the Courts back.

Taking the case and ruling in Trump's favor would be a serious threat to our democracy. I don't think Roberts wants any part of this.

to NY's jurisdiction. Certainly hope that's the case and he won't be partisan.

You're absolutely right.

Received a stay of his income taxes within the hour, which will lead to yet another slow-down via the courts of Dems getting a look-see @ his taxes.

However, with the whistle-blower hopefully coming out with some credible evidence of 'irregularities' and 'improprieties' concerning his income taxes ....

Come on whistle-blower ..... come through with the WIN for democracy !!!!!!!!!!!!!

... who are the ones being subpoenaed . After the appeals run out, they will release them, not Trump.

But would that this ruling had come out three or four years ago. We probably wouldn't be dealing with the Orange Menace now.

decides enough is enough. That other power able to do that hasn't been seen to this point -- though our Dems in the House are doing everything they have despite severe executive handicaps. We can only hope the Rs and SCOTUS have a shred of patriotism within them.

He will just find another friendly judge to reverse it.

Let the fireworks begin!!!

In a letter to federal Judge Victor Marrero today, attorneys in the DA’s office said they “reached a temporary arrangement” with Trump’s attorneys to delay enforcement of the subpoena until 1 p.m. two business days after Marrero rules or until 1 p.m. Oct. 7, whichever comes first.

In the meantime, Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, “will resume gathering and preparing all documents responsive to the subpoena,” according to the letter, which was also signed by the president’s attorneys and lawyers for Mazars, which is a defendant in the case.

Unless the court orders otherwise, Mazars will begin “a rolling production” of the tax documents “immediately upon the expiration of this agreement,” with the first delivery by hand on 4 p.m. that day.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142373082

says. ---we will see.

Link to tweet

Most of what happens in the court system is procedural and not political. After reading the trial judge's memorandum I'm pretty sure the Second Circuit will uphold the subpoena.

(a) not having a single damn clue about how the legal system works, plus
(b) insisting that the courts must rule in "our" favor all the time; if they don't, it must mean they're stupid and biased, rule of law be damned.

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2019, 04:41 PM - Edit history (2)

Calling judges "he" by default is a statement which embodies a sexist assumption. Incidentally, more than half the judges on this court are D appointees, and the bench is 20% women.

It would be extremely unusual for a stay pending expedited review not to be issued in a case involving the president asserting an Article II power or privilege.

It will also be extremely unusual for the appellate court not to agree with this ruling.

Kind of funny that none of the people citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 had an issue with Clinton exercising his legal rights to the fullest extent to take that case to the Supreme Court.

Litigants are entitled to appeal rulings. In a case directly involving the powers and immunities of a Constitutional office, it is unlikely in the extreme that a single district court judge is going to be the last word on practically any ruling in the case.

If state prosecutors were to have unfettered and unreviewable ability to go after the president, then remember that state governments are run by creatures like this:

Noting wrong with waiting until the appeal is finished.

It's explicit in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and it has to do with the right to due process. All this does is impose a temporary stay while the appellate court reviews the trial judge's decision, which is exactly what appellate courts exist for. The appellate court granted the stay only because the trial judge's order would cause a result that can't be undone. If I'd been on that appellate court I'd have done the same thing because it's the law, and the law is supposed to apply equally to everybody - even to people we don't like. I have read the trial judge's lengthy memorandum and I'd be very surprised if the court of appeals doesn't uphold the judge's decision.

the appeals court, with Katzenburg as their chief.

I don't know what this means, in terms of releasing taxes by 4 pm, but I'd bet that this case doesn't get to SCOTUS.

and will be scheduled for consideration soon.

declaring that a sitting president can't be prosecuted while in office are not controlling and aren't even persuasive. It's very long and probably a bit heavy going for non-lawyers but it's worth a look. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/TrumpvVanceJretalDocketNo119cv08694SDNYSept192019CourtDocket/4?1570464158

75 pages but it wastes no time in addressing the illogical immunity claimed -- "Hence, the expansive notion of constitutional immunity invoked here to shield the President from judicial process would constitute an overreach of executive power."

Appreciate the link to some good reading.

The Court is not persuaded that it should accord the weight and legal force the President ascribes to the DOJ Memos, or accept as controlling the far-reaching proposition for which they are cited in the context of the controversy at hand. As a point of departure, the Court notes that many statements of the principle that "a sitting President cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted" typically cite to the DOJ Memos as sole authority for that proposition. Accordingly, the theory has gained a certain degree of axiomatic acceptance, and the DOJ Memos which propagate it have assumed substantial legal force as if their conclusion were inscribed on constitutional tablets so-etched by the Supreme Court. The Court considers such popular currency for the categorical concept and its legal support as not warranted.

-- Victor Marrero
U.S.D.J.

the returns are full of fraudulent entries and illegal deductions. All fraud ... send him to prison like other die hard tax cheats.

Any decision can be appealed but to be overturned there must be a pretty good reason. Decisions to overturn decisions are not simply made because one disagrees with the decision. There must be a factual, legal-based reason to overturn and I just do not see that happening here.

I'd expect if it did wind all the way to the Supreme Court that they'd refuse to hear it and kick it back down. There is nothing wrong with the ruling, other than that Scrump does not like it.

'Bye bye, dickhead! See you in Attica, dick.'