Lawrence Tribe on Lawrence O'Donnell: Likely SCOTUS will not hear Trump's tax returns appeal AT ALL

[Miles Archer]

That's about it, not more to share. Said that if they ruled on it, Trump would lose, but it is more likely that they won't hear it at all.

[elleng]

1. I had the same thought; glad he agrees.

RBG will decide first, whether the Court should hear it, and trump etc. will likely seek review of THAT decision, whether or not to hear the matter, to the entire Court.

[StarfishSaver]

3. That's not how it works

RBG doesn't decide first whether the Court will hear it.

Trump's attorneys will file a petition for certiorari with the full Court. If four of the nine justices agree to grant cert, the full Court will take up the appeal. RBG plays no special role in this and has no greater say than the other eight justices.

You may be conflating RBG's responsibility as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit with her responsibility as a member of the Court. Each circuit has its own Circuit Justice who oversees a number of administrative matters for the circuit and who hears emergency matters, like requests for stays, etc. A circuit justice can and sometimes does refer such matters to the full Court. But petitions for certiorari do not go through them but go straight to the full Court.

RBG is the Second Circuit's Circuit Justice and, as such, she plays this role for them. But the Circuit Justice's role is completely separate from their role as a member of the Court and no Circuit Justice has any independent decision-making power over whether the Court takes up an appeal.

[elleng]

4. According to Tribe, RBG gets the first bite of this apple.

The STAY was the issue Tribe discussed.

[StarfishSaver]

6. A stay is a different issue

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Court takes the case on appeal.

[bluestarone]

17. seems like a good place to ask this.

Why did the State of NY agree to 10 day appeal?

[StarfishSaver]

18. I don't understand your question

Can you elaborate? Thanks.

[bluestarone]

21. I thought i heard that the prosecutors agreed to

a 10 day delay in enforcing the subpoena?

[StarfishSaver]

23. I remember them agreeing to that a few weeks ago pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals

But I haven't heard they did this following the most recent ruling.

They agreed to the stay previously for good reason. Among other things, the appellate court no doubt would have granted the stay anyway, but Vance and his team got some concessions from the Trump lawyers in return for their agreement.

[bluestarone]

24. Found this. I can see why they did this now! TY

Prosecutors agreed to delay enforcement of the subpoena to Trump’s longtime accounting firm if the president’s lawyers move quickly to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. Under the agreement between prosecutors and the president, Trump’s attorneys have 10 days in which to ask the Supreme Court to step in. Any appeal must ask the court to hear the case this term, meaning before the end if June.

Trump’s attorneys will likely ask the Supreme Court to leave the stay in place while the court decides whether to accept the case.

A spokesman for Vance’s office declined to comment.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Yes, that was it

They didn't agree again to a stay, but the requirement that Trump's attorneys move quickly to request an appeal from the Supreme Court - and that they ask the case be decided in this term - was part of the deal when they agreed to a stay of the lower court opinion.

Some people complained about that then, but it was a smart move by Vance and his team.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/21/manhattan-da-vance-trump-agree-to-further-delay-in-enforcement-of-grand-jury-subpoena/?slreturn=20191005121435

[bluestarone]

30. Yes TY i see the light now LOL

[ritapria]

9. Do we have any idea when the Supreme Court

will decide whether to take the case ? ...Weeks? … A Month?

[StarfishSaver]

10. No.

They can decide when they want.

But I think they'll want to get this disposed of pretty quickly, so I lean toward them either granting or denying cert within weeks.

But that's just a guess ...

[onenote]

20. Correct

Supreme Court Rule 22 provides that a request for the Supreme Court to stay the lower court decision must be directed to RBG as the justice assigned to the Second Circuit; if she denies it, the applicant can submit a renewed request to any justice he/she chooses, although renewed requests are "not favored" according to the SCOTUS rules. What often happens in a high-profile case is that the justice receiving the initial request (or a justice receiving a renewed request) will refer the request to the full court to decide.

[StarfishSaver]

2. The appellate court drew its decision so narrowly, they made it difficult for the SCt to take it

[doc03]

5. But this is no longer a normal SCOTUS don't bet the farm on it nt

[jberryhill]

8. Every single one of those justices provided their tax returns for Congressional review

Some things are simply not a matter of ideology.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Yes

And while I have all kinds of issues with Roberts, I do believe that he cares about and respects the Court and also is concerned about his own legacy as Chief Justice. He doesn't want to go down as a lackey to Trump and Kavannaugh.

[hvn_nbr_2]

13. "Concerned about his own legacy"

I think that's his motivation in cases where he's the fifth vote for a sensible ruling.

I somewhat whimsically believe that every now and then Roberts gets a 2:00 a.m. visitation from the Ghost of Historians Future, who shows him snippets from future history books with phrases like "Roger Taney and John Roberts," "Roberts and Taney," "Taney and Roberts," and so on. Then for a little while, he does some sensible things.

[StarfishSaver]

14. So funny you mentioned Taney

I was going to say that he doesn't want to go down in history as another Roger Taney, but thought the reference was too obscure.

Obviously, it's not all that obscure - at least not to you.

[Mike 03]

26. Googles Roger Taney

Damn you guys are knowledgeable! Thanks for my history lesson of the day.

[StarfishSaver]

33. ...

Roger Taney is so discredited that his bust was removed from the main room of the old Supreme Court courtroom in the U.S Capitol to the robing room because he just didn't deserve the same place of honor the other Chief Justices had earned.

And his statue was recently moved from the Maryland Capitol grounds because the state leaders acknowledged how inappropriate it is to pay tribute to this man.

This man who used his power as a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to proclaim and make it the law that black people could never be American citizens because "they had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." And, in so doing, branded onto black people a badge of inferiority that took a Civil War, three constitutional amendments, countless pieces of legislation, and more 150 years to even begin to eradicate - and which still haunts this nation to this day.

John Roberts probably has nightmares about being a modern day Roger Taney - a Chief Justice who besmirched his seat and allowed a craven mindset to permeate the Court, its jurisprudence and precedent - and I think he's going to try to avoid that fate.

[NewJeffCT]

15. I have a feeling that even if it went to the entire court

I don't think it would be a 5-4 decision. I could see 6-3 or 7-2 with only Kavanaugh and Thomas voting against, and maybe one other.

[CaptainTruth]

7. That's my opinion too. I don't see a reason why SCOTUS would hear the case.

My only question is, how quickly will that decision be made? A week or two? A month or two?

[Miles Archer]

12. O'Donnell also noted the speed at which this has moved...

...I don't have an answer for you on the time, but my educated guess is that every judge on the SCOTUS is seeing the same headlines we're all seeing, including Sekulow announcing that he wants it to go there, and I can't imagine them wanting to be wrapped up in this any longer than is necessary.

[StarfishSaver]

16. I agree

But something else occurred to me.

What if the Court, having watched the mockery Trump is trying to make of the courts, the presidency, and Congress, and knowing full well that he's going to do his best to drag everything out with his bs "unlimited temporary presidential immunity" claims, decides to shut his ass down once and for all by taking this case and very quickly ruling that the president CAN be investigated (and maybe even indicted and prosecuted) during his presidency, and issuing an opinion that pretty much takes care of all of is raggedy arguments in several of the pending cases?

Not predicting, but how cool would that be?

[triron]

22. Very very very (etc.) cool.

[Kentonio]

25. It'd be incredibly cool

But I suspect we’re not that lucky..

[StarfishSaver]

28. You're probably right. But a girl can dream, can't she?

[edhopper]

19. Tribe is commenting on the law

this SCOTUS no longer follows the law.
See gerrymandering and voters rights decisions.

[StarfishSaver]

29. The Court still follows the law

They just often interpret it differently than we would like.

[edhopper]

34. No they don't

Unless you want to "interpret" the Constitution as not containing the Rights of voters.

“Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “But the fact that such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles’ does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.”

Justice Roberts.

[CanonRay]

31. If they've got half a brain

they won't touch this with a ten foot pole. If.

[SWBTATTReg]

32. I agree...there's nothing to hear about, nothing new or untowards about the law, etc.

Provide the tax returns.

We have all seen this repeatedly, over the years (DUers), with the 'I'll appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court!' remarks, etc., when in fact they only hear cases where a certain component of that particular law raises an issue w/ with wording in the Constitution, it's Amendments, or established law (US law (the wording is confusing, or something like that)). This is my understanding and it makes sense.

Trying to delay the whole process is the only rationale I can see why defendants do this (for the most part, there are legitimate reasons too that occur where appealing to the court would be of benefit). Rump must be truly nervous about showing his returns...I suspect (based on previous tidbits of information that has recently tickled out) that quite a few discrepancies are going to be found in these returns...

[lettucebe]

35. That's my opinion - there's no reason for them to hear it at all

The lower courts have all agreed. End of story.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

36. So they're being asked to overturn decades of precedent (government appointees or elected

officials revealing their taxes) to satisfy the whining of one sociopathic narcissist? I don't think they want to grab hold of that tar baby. SCOTUS justices are always aware of their place in history.