Second Circuit Opinion In Trump v. Vance (actual document here for people who think for themselves)

[jberryhill]

Unlike a lot of other things you see in the news, court decisions are things where you don't have to rely on what someone else decides to tell you about them. You can directly read them for yourself.

That is a useful habit to develop, since it can go a long way toward dispelling various popular, but wrong, notions about how courts work and how appeals courts work in particular, and can render you resistant to knee-jerk attacks against the judiciary as are depressing common.

The full decision is here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6538526/11-4-19-Trump-v-Vance-Opinion.pdf

What a lot of folks seem to miss is that the underlying subpoena battle here is between the state of NY and the accounting firm which handles Trump's taxes. The subpoena is not even directed to Trump:

The President argues that this case is distinguishable from Nixon and
related cases because this subpoena comes from a state rather than a federal
court. While the Supreme Court has not had occasion to address this question, it
has noted in passing that “any direct control by a state court over the President”
may “implicate concerns” under the Supremacy Clause. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 691
n.13. But, as already discussed, this subpoena does not involve “direct control by
a state court over the President.” Although the subpoena is directed to the
President’s custodian, no court has ordered the President to do or produce
anything.

There is another point here worth mentioning for the "courts are rigged" or who go on about how slow they are:

We emphasize again the narrowness of the issue before us. This appeal
does not require us to consider whether the President is immune from
indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the President
may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal
proceeding. We accordingly do not address those issues. The only question
before us is whether a state may lawfully demand production by a third party of
the President’s personal financial records for use in a grand jury investigation
while the President is in office. With the benefit of the district court’s well‐
articulated opinion, we hold that any presidential immunity from state criminal
process does not bar the enforcement of such a subpoena.

By taking the time to issue a thorough and well-supported decision, the District Court saved time for the appellate court, and gave the appellate court no reason to conclude that the District Court gave the matter less attention than needed.

[GusBob]

1. To quote my brother, a Calif PD

when asked: is your job like LA Law?

No, its more like Night Court, says he

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It was a very carefully-crafted opinion that made a point of not deciding the bigger issues

(although it hinted at a few, especially in its references to the Nixon tapes case), but pretty well crushed the notion that a president is immune from everything all the time. It also stated that materials relating to a president's business dealings as a private citizen are not covered by any kind of privilege, which was the patently ridiculous argument Trump's lawyers proposed.