Quote:
Originally Posted by EADGBE
Confused as **** on this second ruling re congressional subpoenas on POTUS. I might have to actually read the thing later.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...9-715_febh.pdf
Something like Congress can subpeona in theory, but certain standards have to be met so they remanded the case back down?
I duno, paging Grizy. He smells like a lawyer.
They basically punted.
The ruling roughly says the following:
1. confirmed Congress DOES have the power to subpoena POTUS' personal financial records (Alito and Thomas rejected this)
2. remanded on the question of whether Congress' subpoena met the standards of old case law (some of which from Nixon era) where the subpoenas must be "specific" and to advance "valid legislative purpose."
Courts in general are loathe to get in on political questions like this (despite what many of you think, they really try to find ways out of settling disputes that are political in nature). With SCOTUS punting, I think it's unlikely the lower courts will move this quickly in time for us to see taxes before the election. But you never know. If Trump gets re-elected and Dems get Congress, my guess is they'll get subpoenas through and SCOTUS will decline to review. "Valid legislative purpose" is traditionally defined pretty broadly to be just short of police powers so I am sure Democrats' lawyers can find something to get at least some of the subpoenas through.
SCOTUS is also sending a signal to Congress that they really don't want to deal with this (note Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both were in the majority with the liberal justices + Roberts) kind of political question and they'll try their best to punt again if it gets to that.
In a rather passive-aggressive way, the SCOTUS just called POTUS and/or Congress children. Something about the legislative and executive branches managing to settle subpoenas for over two centuries without sending the issue to SCOTUS something something.
Last edited by grizy; 07-09-2020 at 06:41 PM.