All Things SCOTUS
- Thread starter Irish YJ
- Start date
MAY 13, 2020 / 5:04 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
U.S. Supreme Court to hear presidential Electoral College dispute
Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.
The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.
The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.
Colorado and Washington state are among the 48 states - only Maine and Nebraska excepted - with winner-takes-all systems awarding all electors to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote.
The Electoral College vote, held weeks after the general election, is often overlooked as a mere formality in which the electors - typically party loyalists - actually vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote.
But in 2016, 10 of the 538 electors voted for someone else. While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.
State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.
The justices must decide if states can penalize faithless electors with actions such as monetary fines or removal from the role. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws intended to control how electors vote. Only a handful enforce them with penalties.
“If the Supreme Court agrees with us and in my opinion the founding fathers, they’ll find that electors are completely able to use their judgment to determine who they should vote for,” said Bret Chiafalo of Everett, Washington, one of the lead plaintiffs.
Trump’s administration has taken no stance in the cases.
U.S. Supreme Court to hear presidential Electoral College dispute
Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.
The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.
The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.
Colorado and Washington state are among the 48 states - only Maine and Nebraska excepted - with winner-takes-all systems awarding all electors to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote.
The Electoral College vote, held weeks after the general election, is often overlooked as a mere formality in which the electors - typically party loyalists - actually vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote.
But in 2016, 10 of the 538 electors voted for someone else. While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.
State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.
The justices must decide if states can penalize faithless electors with actions such as monetary fines or removal from the role. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws intended to control how electors vote. Only a handful enforce them with penalties.
“If the Supreme Court agrees with us and in my opinion the founding fathers, they’ll find that electors are completely able to use their judgment to determine who they should vote for,” said Bret Chiafalo of Everett, Washington, one of the lead plaintiffs.
Trump’s administration has taken no stance in the cases.
Supreme Court appears headed for a split decision on Trump taxes, financial records
The cases involve efforts by House Democrats and a N.Y. prosecutor to obtain the president's documents.
y 12, 2020, 2:28 PM CDT / Updated May 12, 2020, 2:42 PM CDT
By Pete Williams
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed prepared to rule that Congress went too far in seeking broad access to President Donald Trump's personal financial documents but that a New York prosecutor may be able to get his tax records.
The justices heard three hours of argument by telephone conference call, and lawyers for the president seemed to find more traction for their claim that Congress does not have unlimited authority to issue subpoenas, especially when a president may find it distracting to respond.
The Democratic majorities of three House committees are seeking several years' worth of financial records from Mazars, the Trump organization's accounting firm, and two banks that loaned money to Trump businesses, Capital One and Deutsche Bank.
House Democrats have said they believe the records might provide insights into a question special counsel Robert Mueller never answered: Did Trump borrow money from Russian entities or otherwise do business with them before he became president?
Patrick Strawbridge, representing Trump, said the Congressional committees went too far, because they can only subpoena material when considering specific legislation, not simply to conduct broad investigations.
"The power that they are seeking and the burden they will impose in the aggregate on the president will reshape and transform the balance of the separation of powers," he said.
Several members of the court's conservative majority seemed to agree.
Justice Samuel Alito asked the the lawyers for the House, "In your view, there is really no protection against the use of congressional subpoenas for the purpose of preventing the harassment of a president because the only requirement is that the subpoena be relevant to a conceivable legislative purpose, and you can't think of a single example of a subpoena that wouldn't meet that test?"
That prospect seemed to concern even one of the court's liberals, Stephen Breyer.
"What I hold today will also apply to a future Senator McCarthy asking a future Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman exactly the same questions. That bothers me," Breyer said.
Other members of the liberal wing were more sympathetic to the congressional demands.
"The aura of this case is really sauce for the goose that serves the gander as well," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "So how do you distinguish, say, Whitewater, when President Clinton's personal records were subpoenaed from his accountant, or even Hillary Clinton's law firm billing records were subpoenaed?"
While a majority of the court seemed concerned that the Congressional demands sweep too broadly, seeking years of records from Trump and members of his family, it's possible the court could allow more narrow subpoenas for personal documents before he became president.
But a clear majority seemed prepared to reject the president's position in the second case, in which his lawyers claimed that presidents are absolutely immune from any part of the criminal justice system, including a subpoena from a grand jury.
Manhattan's district attorney, Cyrus Vance, is seeking Trump's tax records for an investigation of hush money payments made to two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump — allegations the president has consistently denied.
Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that position was too limited.
"It is OK for the grand jury to investigate, except it cannot use the traditional and most effective device that they have typically used, which is the subpoena?" he asked.
And Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Suppose that the prosecutor has good reason to believe that the records are not available from any other source and a third party committed a crime?"
The court seemed prepared to send the case back to the lower courts to see whether the Vance subpoena seeks material that is essential to his investigation, would be available nowhere else and would not unduly burden the president from carrying out his official duties.
Rulings in both cases are likely by the end of June or early July. But if the lower courts must take another look at whether the records that Trump has fought so hard not to turn over can be obtained by subpoena, a resolution wouldn't be likely for several more months, and certainly not before the November election.
The cases involve efforts by House Democrats and a N.Y. prosecutor to obtain the president's documents.
y 12, 2020, 2:28 PM CDT / Updated May 12, 2020, 2:42 PM CDT
By Pete Williams
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed prepared to rule that Congress went too far in seeking broad access to President Donald Trump's personal financial documents but that a New York prosecutor may be able to get his tax records.
The justices heard three hours of argument by telephone conference call, and lawyers for the president seemed to find more traction for their claim that Congress does not have unlimited authority to issue subpoenas, especially when a president may find it distracting to respond.
The Democratic majorities of three House committees are seeking several years' worth of financial records from Mazars, the Trump organization's accounting firm, and two banks that loaned money to Trump businesses, Capital One and Deutsche Bank.
House Democrats have said they believe the records might provide insights into a question special counsel Robert Mueller never answered: Did Trump borrow money from Russian entities or otherwise do business with them before he became president?
Patrick Strawbridge, representing Trump, said the Congressional committees went too far, because they can only subpoena material when considering specific legislation, not simply to conduct broad investigations.
"The power that they are seeking and the burden they will impose in the aggregate on the president will reshape and transform the balance of the separation of powers," he said.
Several members of the court's conservative majority seemed to agree.
Justice Samuel Alito asked the the lawyers for the House, "In your view, there is really no protection against the use of congressional subpoenas for the purpose of preventing the harassment of a president because the only requirement is that the subpoena be relevant to a conceivable legislative purpose, and you can't think of a single example of a subpoena that wouldn't meet that test?"
That prospect seemed to concern even one of the court's liberals, Stephen Breyer.
"What I hold today will also apply to a future Senator McCarthy asking a future Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman exactly the same questions. That bothers me," Breyer said.
Other members of the liberal wing were more sympathetic to the congressional demands.
"The aura of this case is really sauce for the goose that serves the gander as well," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "So how do you distinguish, say, Whitewater, when President Clinton's personal records were subpoenaed from his accountant, or even Hillary Clinton's law firm billing records were subpoenaed?"
While a majority of the court seemed concerned that the Congressional demands sweep too broadly, seeking years of records from Trump and members of his family, it's possible the court could allow more narrow subpoenas for personal documents before he became president.
But a clear majority seemed prepared to reject the president's position in the second case, in which his lawyers claimed that presidents are absolutely immune from any part of the criminal justice system, including a subpoena from a grand jury.
Manhattan's district attorney, Cyrus Vance, is seeking Trump's tax records for an investigation of hush money payments made to two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump — allegations the president has consistently denied.
Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that position was too limited.
"It is OK for the grand jury to investigate, except it cannot use the traditional and most effective device that they have typically used, which is the subpoena?" he asked.
And Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Suppose that the prosecutor has good reason to believe that the records are not available from any other source and a third party committed a crime?"
The court seemed prepared to send the case back to the lower courts to see whether the Vance subpoena seeks material that is essential to his investigation, would be available nowhere else and would not unduly burden the president from carrying out his official duties.
Rulings in both cases are likely by the end of June or early July. But if the lower courts must take another look at whether the records that Trump has fought so hard not to turn over can be obtained by subpoena, a resolution wouldn't be likely for several more months, and certainly not before the November election.
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,408
- Reaction score
- 5,829
Friendly reminder that both cases are unlikely to get you a peek at Trump’s tax returns.
The congressional cases involve financial records (but not taxes). The Manhattan DA case involves tax returns but those would go to a grand jury, which operates in secret.
The House case looks dead in the water. I suspect it gets 6 votes and some language towards a heightened standard.
NY case looks like it could go towards the grand jury seeing the records.
The congressional cases involve financial records (but not taxes). The Manhattan DA case involves tax returns but those would go to a grand jury, which operates in secret.
The House case looks dead in the water. I suspect it gets 6 votes and some language towards a heightened standard.
NY case looks like it could go towards the grand jury seeing the records.
Last edited:
NorthDakota
Grandson of Loomis
- Messages
- 15,705
- Reaction score
- 6,008
Was nice to see Breyer and Kagan join the majority in the Little Sisters case today.
The two rulings on access to Trump's financial records:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TRUMP v. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TRUMP ET AL. v. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 19–715. Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020*
While the final judgemnet mqy have bben deferred until after the election, many Americans may be reluctant to vote for someone who may have benefitted from his position as President and do not want to go through a second impeachment process to remove him. The historical precedents that the President is not above the law as he argued are noted.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TRUMP v. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TRUMP ET AL. v. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 19–715. Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020*
While the final judgemnet mqy have bben deferred until after the election, many Americans may be reluctant to vote for someone who may have benefitted from his position as President and do not want to go through a second impeachment process to remove him. The historical precedents that the President is not above the law as he argued are noted.
Last edited:
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,408
- Reaction score
- 5,829
I have lots of thoughts on these.
Summarily-
This is a win for Trump.
While the left cherishes RBG, the right should recognize that Clarence Thomas -no matter the day, no matter the case, always reliable, as strong and unyielding as iron. His dissent in Mazars is classic Thomas. I love it.
SCOTUS effectively kicked the can down the road in each instance. Smart people recognized that no result was going to have Rachel Maddow dissecting the results on air tonight, but this ruling means the only chance of his tax records going public now is a leak. This also means that Schiff won't view them in private and then tour the news circuit and spread lies about what he saw, again.
While people think of this court as a partisan body, seeing the clear liberal judges joining with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was a pleasant surprise.
Roberts's opinion on Mazars did seem to create future hurdles for legislative subpoenas, which is good. I think most rational people are tired of partisan investigations.
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,408
- Reaction score
- 5,829
Missed it by one judge.
NorthDakota
Grandson of Loomis
- Messages
- 15,705
- Reaction score
- 6,008
I like the bit about hurdles. My big fear was that if Congress was allowed to do this to Trump, every single POTUS would have it done to them and that's really not good for the country in general.
- Messages
- 44,608
- Reaction score
- 20,086
They basically said there is a separation between personal and public lives and the House was overreaching.
Sea Turtle
Slow and steady wins the race
- Messages
- 5,645
- Reaction score
- 3,488
Ruth Vader Ginsberg dies at 87.
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2026!
- Messages
- 31,521
- Reaction score
- 17,402
Was that an intentional typo, or an auto correct?
- Messages
- 37,545
- Reaction score
- 28,995
The 4D chess move for Trump is to not nominate someone... say he’s had a change of heart from his comments last month, and wants the people to decide who picks next justice. Would probably juice his numbers with conservatives who aren’t a fan of his tweets and other conduct, but care about having control of the highest court in the land.
If he rams through a justice right now, he risks getting blown out in November. And then you risk down the ballot losses, and Biden packing the court in response.
But the worst case scenario would be that he nominates someone and too many GOP Senators defect for the nomination to go through.
If he rams through a justice right now, he risks getting blown out in November. And then you risk down the ballot losses, and Biden packing the court in response.
But the worst case scenario would be that he nominates someone and too many GOP Senators defect for the nomination to go through.
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2026!
- Messages
- 31,521
- Reaction score
- 17,402
Sounds like wishful thinking.
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The actual moment Trump found out RBG died was caught on tape <a href="https://t.co/rJcNnpP9Wm">pic.twitter.com/rJcNnpP9Wm</a></p>— Jack Posobiec ���� (@JackPosobiec) <a href="https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1307129293366079488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Proof that we are all just living in a simulation.
Proof that we are all just living in a simulation.
Sea Turtle
Slow and steady wins the race
- Messages
- 5,645
- Reaction score
- 3,488
It was either an auto correct or hit the V next to B by accident.
Mitch just said that he will allow a vote on a nominee. I hope it's Amy Coney Barrett.
- Messages
- 37,545
- Reaction score
- 28,995
Trump hasn’t tweeted since learning the news. He has so many power moves he can make here, I imagine every person on his campaign is trying to keep a tight lid on things until at minimum they’ve done a straw poll of GOP senators and probably until they’ve done internal polls of Republican voters.
I really think his best move to try to get his base to turn out strong by delaying it until at least after Election Day (could still push it through before inauguration if he loses).
I really think his best move to try to get his base to turn out strong by delaying it until at least after Election Day (could still push it through before inauguration if he loses).
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2026!
- Messages
- 31,521
- Reaction score
- 17,402
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,408
- Reaction score
- 5,829
It’s so sad that this is where we are in America. She just died and it’s straight to politics. Not pointing at lax, just in general.
As for the move, it’s too important. The Left has campaigned on court packing, cutting the filibuster, and dangerous overreach by executive order. SCOTUS is a very necessary firewall against insanity. Roberts is a swing vote and we need someone who will be reliable. Also, love that it’s a mom, from ND, and the Midwest.
SCOTUS reminds republicans who don’t like mean tweets what is at stake.
That said, I’d be shocked if they don’t fill the seat. You’ll see the lefts real thoughts on Catholics come out in the next few weeks and this will move abortion to the national spotlight.
I just hope the violence from the left doesn’t get worse. This will anger a lot of people who want to turn us into something unrecognizable.
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
It’s so unfortunate how we immediately jump to politics. Anyway, here’s 150 words on the political implications of her death.
- Messages
- 37,545
- Reaction score
- 28,995
TBH if Trump forces through Barrett, who I think would make a good justice, and then reaps the whirlwind that would pretty much be my dream scenario. It is unprecedented to nominate someone this close to the election, much less have them confirmed: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...th-could-mean-for-2020-and-the-supreme-court/
So I'm not sure he will have the votes. Worst case scenario is Barret's nomination doesn't go through, Trump wins on the back of galvanizing conservative support but loses the senate, and then we get some stooge in there.
So I'm not sure he will have the votes. Worst case scenario is Barret's nomination doesn't go through, Trump wins on the back of galvanizing conservative support but loses the senate, and then we get some stooge in there.
drayer54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 8,408
- Reaction score
- 5,829
I don't mind reminding Catholic Democrats close to an election how the broader Democratic party feels about them and their views.
I look for the questioning in the judiciary committee to highlight the previous anti-catholic bigotry we've seen.
- Messages
- 37,545
- Reaction score
- 28,995
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/GOP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GOP</a> We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Irish YJ
Southsida
- Messages
- 25,888
- Reaction score
- 1,444
this whole "start playing McConnell's chess game" is pretty LOL.
Harry Reid/Dems changed the rules in 2013. Mitch gave them an FU back with Garland, and then the Dems tried to tank Gorsuch so Mitch pulled a Harry Reid back on them. Then the Dems put on a shit show with Kav.
Let's quit acting like the Dems have always played fair in this space, and are the "victim" here. We all know the faux outrage will be turned up to 11.
Trump has made his feelings known about Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. Romney would make a good Secretary of State in a Biden administration.
Trump on Murkowski:
On Romney:
“Utah, the home of our worst senator ... that’s Romney,”
and “You can have Romney, I tell you. Romney couldn’t be elected dogcatcher right now in Utah.”
and termed Romney "a loser".
Trump on Murkowski:
On Romney:
“Utah, the home of our worst senator ... that’s Romney,”
and “You can have Romney, I tell you. Romney couldn’t be elected dogcatcher right now in Utah.”
and termed Romney "a loser".
Last edited: