The Supreme Court Could Decide if the President Is Above the Law

[sheshe2]

snip

In other words, if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, it would be a sign that the high court is willing to consider the idea that a sitting president isn’t simply immune from prosecution, but from even being investigated. That is why Litman recommends that they reject the case, because it would simply validate Trump’s extreme view that the president is above the law.

If the justices let the decision of the appeals court stand, the president’s tax returns would be made public very shortly. Paul Waldman summarized the questions that might be answered.

Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, agrees that what the returns reveal will be scandalous. Tax avoidance? Definitely. Tax evasion? Probably. Partnerships with shady characters, even criminals? No one will be surprised.

If the justices agree to hear the case, all bets are off and the Supreme Court could be on the verge of one of the most monumental decisions in the court’s history. As the legislative branch becomes engaged in the question of whether to impeach the president and remove him from office, the judicial branch could be on track to rule whether he is above the law.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/11/05/the-supreme-court-could-decide-if-the-president-is-above-the-law/

Will they reject? We will know soon who the traitors on the SCOTUS are. Will they stake their reputations and their legacy to support trump?

[Kurt V.]

1. l'll give it a 5-4 chance. sigh.

[leftieNanner]

2. I think Alito, Thomas, and Beer Boy

will vote to hear the case. Gorsuch and Roberts may surprise us. They're not COMPLETELY partisan idiots.

But it should never get that far. From what I understand, the decision from the Appeals Court was very clear and convincing.

[Girard442]

5. I'd like to think they won't support Trump without at least a figleaf of legal justification.

Sadly, my money is on a flat edict with a Scalia under-the-chin gesture.

[maxsolomon]

3. 50:50 they Bush v. Gore it.

I have no faith in this nation's institutions right now.

[wryter2000]

4. Lawrence Tribe says they won't hear it

That makes the most sense to me. Some of them may be dying to declare the President a king, but I imagine most of them want no part of it. Even if they did hear it, it could be decided on the very narrow grounds the appeals court based its decision on.

[sheshe2]

10. I agree.

The will reject and The Con will go ballistic!

[bitterross]

6. Let's hope Roberts doesn't want crowning a monarch as his legacy

If they take the case, I hope Roberts has the good sense to realize he'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the founders would want. SCOTUS would be, in effect, elevating the President to the status of a monarch. Untouchable.

[leftieNanner]

7. How very sad

That we are hanging our hopes on Roberts' consideration of his own legacy as opposed to his consideration of our country.

[sheshe2]

12. IKR?

Perhaps, just perhaps he has a touch of humanity as well.

These days, I just don't know anymore.

[leftieNanner]

13. He did let us keep the ACA

So there's that.

[sheshe2]

15. Yes.

And that was a shocker. Sure shocked the GOPeees.

[leftieNanner]

16. The ACA was salvation for my family for a few years

Before Medicare kicked in. My husband was laid off his job and for a complicated bunch of reasons, he ended up starting up a small consulting business - self employed with zero benefits. At our ages, it would have been very dangerous to go without insurance. He had had a heart attack in 2009, so he would be completely unable to get health insurance from any provider.

Luckily, the ACA came along, and although it wasn't cheap, we were able to get coverage. Now we're on Geezer care. All is good. So, for that, thank you John Roberts.

[sheshe2]

18. ACA helped me as well.

I lost my job. Cobra would have bankrupted me. I am low income and paid little for coverage that gave me peace of mind. I was unable to find a job...to old and in the way. Medicare kicked in a year and a half later.

Glad you and your husband found the coverage you needed, Nanner. ACA needs to be built on.

[bluestarone]

8. I have to believe they will not hear it! BUT

If they rule for tRUMP our United States id fucked! End of story!

[fescuerescue]

9. Simply deciding to hear case

Doesn't indicate that a President if above the law.

Precisely the opposite. Accepting the case is a function OF the law. Acceptance indicates a willingness on the part of the court to issue a legal ruling regarding the President. That's not above the law, that's engaged in the law as much as the court could be.

The reality is, that the SC rarely declines to hear a case where the President is directly involved. In fact I can't think of a single instance. It's checks and balances at the very very highest level.

It's the outcome that matters and that's a way down the road.

FWIW, I don't believe it'll be a monumental case. They will probably rule he has to turn them over (ala Nixon), and then we'll have something else to talk about for awhile as we learn what the IRS has on him.

[leftieNanner]

14. Good Points

But if SCOTUS decides that Mazar's has to turn over the records to Vance, I don't know how much we might actually learn about them. But we shall see. Doubt they will be public documents right away. Does Donnie have any further nonsense up his (ill-fitting) sleeves to try to block this stuff any further?

I've been using this smilie so much lately, I think I have a headache!

[mopinko]

11. they might take A case, and give him some slack, but

this wont be the one.
there is a shitstorm of cases coming down the pike, and i dont see them taking one of these idiotic gonzo claims.

a real issue that needs to be decided, they likely take. but letting these idiots think they have a key to the sc door?
methinks roberts is too smart to get played by these morons.

[budkin]

17. This was Trump's goal all along

And I'm sad to say that it's going to pay off for him. I have no faith in these "strict constitutionists."

[Kablooie]

19. I believe they would vote presidential immunity for Trump.

And in the future, when a similar situation is brought before them regarding a Democratic president, they would decide it's high time to reconsider the previous decision.