Supreme Court blocks House from Mueller grand jury material

[TomCADem]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The court’s unsigned order keeps previously undisclosed details from the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election out of the hands of Democratic lawmakers at least until early summer. The court will decide then whether to extend its hold.

The federal appeals court in Washington ruled in March that the documents should be turned over because the House Judiciary Committee’s need for the material in its investigation of President Donald Trump outweighed the Justice Department’s interests in keeping the testimony secret.

Mueller’s 448-page report, issued in April 2019, “stopped short” of reaching conclusions about Trump’s conduct, including whether he obstructed justice, to avoid stepping on the House’s impeachment power, the appeals court said.

Read more: https://apnews.com/f6a44e351dc425796c3a6bf7a711ce7c

---

This is why the Supreme Court is losing legitimacy as it repeatedly jumps to the defense of the Trump administration. Normally, it is rare to get Supreme Court review, but even for Trump's personal lawsuits, the cases get fast tracked to the head of the line.

It is as though Trump has John Roberts on speed dial.

[BlueTsunami2018]

1. I don't see how the court voted in any of the stories.

Was it unanimous? 5-4? 6-3?

[leftieNanner]

2. My understanding of the Grand Jury thing

Isn't that they voted on it, but that they put it off until summer, putting a stay on the lower court ruling that would have released the material to the House.

[Lonestarblue]

3. How is Congress supposed to do its Constitutional duty to serve as a check and balance on the execut

If presidents can refuse to respond to subpoenas and refuse to release any government records and the courts say the results of investigations into possible criminal activities by the president need not be shared with Congress, there is no way to hold an executive accountable. Yes, an impeachment trial can be held, but it will be toothless without access to witnesses and documents. I do not understand how the SC can rule, even temporarily, to withhold evidence. The House cannot be accused of partisan politics because it was a Republican that appointed Mueller and Mueller is a Republican who conducted the investigation. How is that partisan?

[Rural_Progressive]

4. How is this a constitutional issue?

Isn't the Supreme Court only supposed to weigh in on Constitutional issues?

[Igel]

16. When somebody on death row appeals,

is that a constitutional issue?

In this case, it's a matter of how to interpret a judicial rule.

And it's a question of constitutional prerogatives of the Congress versus the executive branch.

So all three branches are involved.

Typically courts stay out of subpoenas between the branches, but since it involved grand jury material (which is owned by the judicial branch, by the way) they had to get involved.

[Bettie]

40. And five of them want to give Agent Orange a pass

on his illegal activities.

[lastlib]

39. there are many non-constitutional matters where the SCt has jurisdiction.

there are even some instances in which it has original jurisdiction--ie, that's where the case begins. It can hear appeals in things like federal tax cases, and a host of other matters.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I stopped believing in the impartiality of the SCOTUS in 2001.

[mountain grammy]

6. Yep, that did it for me too.

[jimfields33]

8. When you know what any justice is going to vote. That's when the court became a

Partisan mess. Although, in this case, it’s just a temporary hold until summer.

[Submariner]

9. Big Tony's coup was on December 12, 2000 to be precise

and we've got 4 illegitimate SC justices out of that election-jacking experience. Racist Roberts, federalist Alito, rapey blackout Brett and Obama's Garland replacement Gorsuch.

The United States as we once knew it does not exist anymore.

[kacekwl]

7. Shocking ! Considering the state of justice in this country.

I'm sure he mighty justices are very proud of themselves.

[BigmanPigman]

10. If a Dem wins we need to increase the number of justices.

[not_the_one]

30. Or we could eliminate (impeach) a few of those who deserve it...

Yes, I know, it is nigh on impossible, appointed for life, blah blah blah...

Brett could go because he LIED under oath. That is impeachable.

Thomas could go because of all the SHIT his cracker wife has done. (Cracker used in the most derogatory way possible. Check out her causes and connections... I bet she has a klan robe (ironic, isn't it) in the closet.)

That would be two to start with.

Increasing the # just to stack the court will seem shady to a lot of Americans. I also think "appointed for life" needs to be reconsidered. The court should reflect the continually evolving populace.


edit in bold

[BidenMyTime]

43. There's no way the Senate would vote to remove

There would be massive whining, crying and political fallout from court packing but you'd get the same thing but with no result from trying to impeach. Best case scenario we get 51-54 senators (even that might be stretching things). You'd get zero Republicans voting to remove - not even Romney.

Court reform should eliminate lifetime appointments but instead have rolling 18-year or so appointments so that every 2 years a justice is up. That removes the perverse incentive of people rooting for justices to die. The only realistic way to get past what the Repubs have done since 2000 is add justices.

I like the idea of having 5 Dems, 5 Repubs and 5 additional justices chosen by the 10 justices themselves but I'm open to other ideas.

[Ford_Prefect]

11. Trump, or McConnell, or Putin, holds the switch on the electrode inserted in Roberts' brain.

[bluestarone]

12. What the fuck is UNSIGNED order?

THEY don't even want to own up to their stupid fucking decision????

[Igel]

17. They didn't actually decide.

It's a temporary stay.

Think about it: If you want to appeal a decision to the next higher level, what happens if implementing the decision makes the appeal impossible?

Let's say it's a person found guilty of murder and the death sentence is imposed. The defendant appeals. The appeal will be heard in 9 months. But the death sentence will be carried out in a month, unless there's a stay. The higher court could let the execution take place, and if the verdict is overturned tell the dead defendant's estate that he was found not guilty, too bad about his death. Or the court can simple stay the execution until the appeal's heard.

Works the same with distributing money, letting somebody leave the country, letting somebody build or destroy something.

[bluestarone]

21. I guess i see your point. My question would be

What possible reason would the SC, NOT see the Houses right to immediately see this?

[Mr.Bill]

28. Grand Juries operate in secret

and Grand Jurors take a lifetime oath of secrecy. Letting their investigation be viewed by anyone can be ordered by a judge, but one must consider what kind of precedent will be made. Having sat on a Grand Jury, I can tell you one of the best investigatory tools they have is a witness thinking their testimony will not be revealed to anyone.

That being said, there are times when it is appropriate, and I think this is one of those times. After all, no one is asking the information to be public, only that Congress can see it.

[former9thward]

19. Unsigned orders are common when the court is not making a decision on the merits.

Sometimes if a justice has a strong dissent to one of those type of orders they will write an opinion and sign it but that is rare.

[bluestarone]

22. TY

In your view, are you surprised by this decision?

[former9thward]

24. No.

This is a confrontation between the branches and they don't want to make a quick decision. It was probably unanimous.

[Mr. Ected]

13. Well hell, if they're going to behave like politicians and not jurists

They should also be subject to a popular vote and not given lifetime appointments. Remember when Republicans decried "activist judges"?

The founders have been disgraced by fascist wolves in democratic sheep clothing.

[SkatmanRoth]

14. We are getting hammered by the lawless Republicans.

First Moscow Mitch and the Republicans steal the Merrick Garland nomination, then they force through the totally unfit Brett Kavanaugh. It is imperative that we elect a Democratic President in 2020.

[Guilded Lilly]

15. Well, we have some real dangerous incompetents posing as qualified...

Judicial members.

This is our horrible state of government on top of traitors and lunatic Cretins without accountability running rampant.

This twilight zone numbness that invades our lives while we still continue to resist and revolt can take a temporary toll.

What a frustrating mess while we still plod forward towards better days.

[turbinetree]

18. AS the old saying goes the "new normal" this country was sold out during and when the Powell Memo

was implemented and then he went to the bench in 1972..............

https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

And now the country has just been getting royally fucked when #Moscow Mitch, decided all by himself and his caucus to just fuck over a former president and the Constitution...............this is why you vote..............its the courts....................

[former9thward]

20. It is not a rare decision.

It is rare when one branch of government confronts another branch. Those type of cases are almost always heard and quickly.

[sandensea]

23. Speed dial or not, Cheeto has Roberts' number.

It's long been rumored Roberts is gay; Barr may have photo/video evidence of the very thing.

[aeromanKC]

25. Stayed so they can then stay again until after election due to now being too close to an election

You can see the writing on the wall.

[Joinfortmill]

26. The Blue Wave is coming and then ... we begin impeaching judges.

[JudyM]

29. If only we could get rid of all his appointed judges wholesale.

[burrowowl]

32. Kick

[warmfeet]

33. Another one, SuperPower, U Fucking SA, bites the dust.

Just, Fucking, Wonderful.



Collapse.

R.
I.
P.

R
U
L
E

O
F

L
A
W.

[dalton99a]

34. Worthless Trump lapdogs in black robes.

The U.S. Supreme Court completely lost its legitimacy in December 2000.

[0nirevets]

35. Rubber Stamp Roberts warping law to favor those who own him.

Five of nine SCOTUS Justices are lifetime members of the GOP Machiavellian cult.

[Ferrets are Cool]

36. America is broken.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

37. Fuck you, Roberts. Fuck you, Gorsch. Fuck you, Kavadrunk.

You fucking partisan fascist hacks.

[Hotler]

38. We need a modern day Deep Throat to start leaking little bits of info here and there.

This could be our Pentagon Papers.

[budkin]

41. All too predictable

Just like they will soon block Trump’s taxes from being released.

[ancianita]

42. So at this point, Republican fascists have captured 2.5 of 3 branches of government.

This is typical stalling bullshit. It is no longer The People's court.

John The Pirate Roberts can go suck it.

[ffr]

44. Joyce Vance says what I'm thinking.

No one blocks a report that fully exonerates them from becoming public.

Link to tweet

[Kid Berwyn]

45. +++democracy

We the Who?