Supreme Court blocks House from Mueller grand jury material
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Muellers Russia investigation.
The courts unsigned order keeps previously undisclosed details from the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election out of the hands of Democratic lawmakers at least until early summer. The court will decide then whether to extend its hold.
The federal appeals court in Washington ruled in March that the documents should be turned over because the House Judiciary Committees need for the material in its investigation of President Donald Trump outweighed the Justice Departments interests in keeping the testimony secret.
Muellers 448-page report, issued in April 2019, stopped short of reaching conclusions about Trumps conduct, including whether he obstructed justice, to avoid stepping on the Houses impeachment power, the appeals court said.
Read more: https://apnews.com/f6a44e351dc425796c3a6bf7a711ce7c
This is why the Supreme Court is losing legitimacy as it repeatedly jumps to the defense of the Trump administration. Normally, it is rare to get Supreme Court review, but even for Trump's personal lawsuits, the cases get fast tracked to the head of the line.
It is as though Trump has John Roberts on speed dial.
BlueTsunami2018
(3,503 posts)Was it unanimous? 5-4? 6-3?
leftieNanner
(15,149 posts)Isn't that they voted on it, but that they put it off until summer, putting a stay on the lower court ruling that would have released the material to the House.
Lonestarblue
(10,063 posts)If presidents can refuse to respond to subpoenas and refuse to release any government records and the courts say the results of investigations into possible criminal activities by the president need not be shared with Congress, there is no way to hold an executive accountable. Yes, an impeachment trial can be held, but it will be toothless without access to witnesses and documents. I do not understand how the SC can rule, even temporarily, to withhold evidence. The House cannot be accused of partisan politics because it was a Republican that appointed Mueller and Mueller is a Republican who conducted the investigation. How is that partisan?
Rural_Progressive
(1,107 posts)Isn't the Supreme Court only supposed to weigh in on Constitutional issues?
Igel
(35,356 posts)is that a constitutional issue?
In this case, it's a matter of how to interpret a judicial rule.
And it's a question of constitutional prerogatives of the Congress versus the executive branch.
So all three branches are involved.
Typically courts stay out of subpoenas between the branches, but since it involved grand jury material (which is owned by the judicial branch, by the way) they had to get involved.
Bettie
(16,124 posts)on his illegal activities.
lastlib
(23,286 posts)there are even some instances in which it has original jurisdiction--ie, that's where the case begins. It can hear appeals in things like federal tax cases, and a host of other matters.
sinkingfeeling
(51,473 posts)mountain grammy
(26,648 posts)jimfields33
(15,948 posts)Partisan mess. Although, in this case, its just a temporary hold until summer.
Submariner
(12,509 posts)and we've got 4 illegitimate SC justices out of that election-jacking experience. Racist Roberts, federalist Alito, rapey blackout Brett and Obama's Garland replacement Gorsuch.
The United States as we once knew it does not exist anymore.
kacekwl
(7,021 posts)I'm sure he mighty justices are very proud of themselves.
BigmanPigman
(51,627 posts)not_the_one
(2,227 posts)Yes, I know, it is nigh on impossible, appointed for life, blah blah blah...
Brett could go because he LIED under oath. That is impeachable.
Thomas could go because of all the SHIT his cracker wife has done. (Cracker used in the most derogatory way possible. Check out her causes and connections... I bet she has a klan robe (ironic, isn't it) in the closet.)
That would be two to start with.
Increasing the # just to stack the court will seem shady to a lot of Americans. I also think "appointed for life" needs to be reconsidered. The court should reflect the continually evolving populace.
edit in bold
BidenMyTime
(6 posts)There would be massive whining, crying and political fallout from court packing but you'd get the same thing but with no result from trying to impeach. Best case scenario we get 51-54 senators (even that might be stretching things). You'd get zero Republicans voting to remove - not even Romney.
Court reform should eliminate lifetime appointments but instead have rolling 18-year or so appointments so that every 2 years a justice is up. That removes the perverse incentive of people rooting for justices to die. The only realistic way to get past what the Repubs have done since 2000 is add justices.
I like the idea of having 5 Dems, 5 Repubs and 5 additional justices chosen by the 10 justices themselves but I'm open to other ideas.
Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #10)
flibbitygiblets This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)bluestarone
(17,030 posts)THEY don't even want to own up to their stupid fucking decision????
Igel
(35,356 posts)It's a temporary stay.
Think about it: If you want to appeal a decision to the next higher level, what happens if implementing the decision makes the appeal impossible?
Let's say it's a person found guilty of murder and the death sentence is imposed. The defendant appeals. The appeal will be heard in 9 months. But the death sentence will be carried out in a month, unless there's a stay. The higher court could let the execution take place, and if the verdict is overturned tell the dead defendant's estate that he was found not guilty, too bad about his death. Or the court can simple stay the execution until the appeal's heard.
Works the same with distributing money, letting somebody leave the country, letting somebody build or destroy something.
bluestarone
(17,030 posts)What possible reason would the SC, NOT see the Houses right to immediately see this?
Mr.Bill
(24,319 posts)and Grand Jurors take a lifetime oath of secrecy. Letting their investigation be viewed by anyone can be ordered by a judge, but one must consider what kind of precedent will be made. Having sat on a Grand Jury, I can tell you one of the best investigatory tools they have is a witness thinking their testimony will not be revealed to anyone.
That being said, there are times when it is appropriate, and I think this is one of those times. After all, no one is asking the information to be public, only that Congress can see it.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)Sometimes if a justice has a strong dissent to one of those type of orders they will write an opinion and sign it but that is rare.
bluestarone
(17,030 posts)In your view, are you surprised by this decision?
former9thward
(32,077 posts)This is a confrontation between the branches and they don't want to make a quick decision. It was probably unanimous.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)They should also be subject to a popular vote and not given lifetime appointments. Remember when Republicans decried "activist judges"?
The founders have been disgraced by fascist wolves in democratic sheep clothing.
SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)First Moscow Mitch and the Republicans steal the Merrick Garland nomination, then they force through the totally unfit Brett Kavanaugh. It is imperative that we elect a Democratic President in 2020.
Guilded Lilly
(5,591 posts)Judicial members.
This is our horrible state of government on top of traitors and lunatic Cretins without accountability running rampant.
This twilight zone numbness that invades our lives while we still continue to resist and revolt can take a temporary toll.
What a frustrating mess while we still plod forward towards better days.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)was implemented and then he went to the bench in 1972..............
https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
And now the country has just been getting royally fucked when #Moscow Mitch, decided all by himself and his caucus to just fuck over a former president and the Constitution...............this is why you vote..............its the courts....................
former9thward
(32,077 posts)It is rare when one branch of government confronts another branch. Those type of cases are almost always heard and quickly.
sandensea
(21,664 posts)It's long been rumored Roberts is gay; Barr may have photo/video evidence of the very thing.
aeromanKC
(3,327 posts)You can see the writing on the wall.
Joinfortmill
(14,456 posts)JudyM
(29,274 posts)Response to TomCADem (Original post)
geralmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
burrowowl
(17,645 posts)warmfeet
(3,321 posts)Just, Fucking, Wonderful.
Collapse.
R.
I.
P.
R
U
L
E
O
F
L
A
W.
dalton99a
(81,570 posts)The U.S. Supreme Court completely lost its legitimacy in December 2000.
0nirevets
(391 posts)Five of nine SCOTUS Justices are lifetime members of the GOP Machiavellian cult.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)Hong Kong Cavalier
(4,573 posts)You fucking partisan fascist hacks.
Hotler
(11,445 posts)This could be our Pentagon Papers.
budkin
(6,714 posts)Just like they will soon block Trumps taxes from being released.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)This is typical stalling bullshit. It is no longer The People's court.
John The Pirate Roberts can go suck it.
ffr
(22,671 posts)Kid Berwyn
(14,953 posts)We the Who?