Red Mosquito
http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/

The Supreme Court
http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15		 Page 114 of 192
Author:  McParadigm [ Thu July 09, 2020 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Green Habit wrote:
Biff Pocoroba wrote:
Wow, I wasn't expecting them to return both cases back to the lower courts.
It buys Trump time but both imply that the records will eventually have to be handed over.
The key here is that they don't ultimately answer either way until after the election, reducing its salience on the campaign trail. It could heat up in either direction depending on if Trump loses or not.

The thing is...

1. At this point, his returns are pretty irrelevant to the campaign either way. He’s got no one left but true believers. That level of support is not enough to win. Clean tax returns wouldn’t change it, and neither would problematic ones.

2. It’s pretty clear that his hope was to establish a clean and complete presidential immunity to financial records requests, and to then to remain president.

His chances of remaining president notwithstanding, this seems to be a blow to that ambition.
Author:  Bi_3 [ Thu July 09, 2020 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?




Summon Herman Munster.
Author:  Chris_H_2 [ Thu July 09, 2020 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
the more concerning opinion came out of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Author:  elliseamos [ Thu July 09, 2020 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.
Author:  verb_to_trust [ Thu July 09, 2020 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
SCOTUS is a joke. This is like Tom Brady asking Brian Hoyer to check in during the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.
Author:  Chris_H_2 [ Thu July 09, 2020 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

i think i understand what you're asking. if someone pleads the 5th in a civil proceeding, there's an "adverse inference" (legal term) that is made that the allegation to which the person asserts the 5th is true. so here, it could be the same type of thing.
Author:  elliseamos [ Thu July 09, 2020 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

i think i understand what you're asking. if someone pleads the 5th in a civil proceeding, there's an "adverse inference" (legal term) that is made that the allegation to which the person asserts the 5th is true. so here, it could be the same type of thing.
Right, that's what I was getting at. I'm now wondering if the refusal to comply with a house subpoena should be considered more than obstruction?
Author:  Chris_H_2 [ Thu July 09, 2020 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

i think i understand what you're asking. if someone pleads the 5th in a civil proceeding, there's an "adverse inference" (legal term) that is made that the allegation to which the person asserts the 5th is true. so here, it could be the same type of thing.
Right, that's what I was getting at. I'm now wondering if the refusal to comply with a house subpoena should be considered more than obstruction?

so it's a weird dynamic. subpoenas are ordinarily enforceable by the power of contempt. if the house holds someone in contempt, one of the ways it can enforce it is by referring the matter to the u.s. attorney's office, which is of course an arm of the executive branch, to prosecute. and we know that that's not happening when the executive branch itself is involved.
Author:  verb_to_trust [ Thu July 09, 2020 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
So what is it people are celebrating here? We are still never going to see his tax returns.
Author:  Green Habit [ Thu July 09, 2020 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Chris_H_2 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.
Well said. :thumbsup:
Author:  Green Habit [ Thu July 09, 2020 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Their Twitter feed is en fuego right now.
Author:  verb_to_trust [ Thu July 09, 2020 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Text I got from a maga today:

Scotus says you can't see Donald's taxes

He's not wrong
Author:  96583UP [ Fri July 10, 2020 1:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes
Author:  verb_to_trust [ Fri July 10, 2020 2:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
96583UP wrote:
nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes


If we can't see them before November who cares?
Author:  BurtReynolds [ Fri July 10, 2020 2:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
Who gives a shit about trump? Half of Oklahoma is Indian territory now. That's hilarious.
Author:  96583UP [ Fri July 10, 2020 2:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
verb_to_trust wrote:
96583UP wrote:
nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes


If we can't see them before November who cares?


people who want to see him punished in 2021+
Author:  verb_to_trust [ Fri July 10, 2020 3:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
96583UP wrote:
verb_to_trust wrote:
96583UP wrote:
nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes


If we can't see them before November who cares?


people who want to see him punished in 2021+



Anyone who thinks that will happen is delusional
Author:  Mickey [ Fri July 10, 2020 3:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
I.... agree with verb.
Author:  The Argonaut [ Fri July 10, 2020 3:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
that way madness lies
Author:  Mickey [ Fri July 10, 2020 3:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Supreme Court
I can stop anytime I want to. Just this once.
Page 114 of 192 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/