(A view of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. as seen from the steps of the United States Supreme Court.)
The U.S. Supreme Court has undertaken the dispute over Donald Trump's efforts to withhold his financial records from Congress and New York investigators and will hear oral arguments on the matter beginning at 10 am/ET today. Audio of these arguments will be made available to the public live in the ongoing process by the high court, who are hearing from counsel and asking their questions remotely.
The cases in question involve document requests from three House committees and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance relating to Trump's accounting firm and financial institutions, both before and during his presidency. You can listen to oral arguments, starting from the beginning here:
Trump has rejected all claims for access to his financial records so far, even after promising to disclose these records during his 2016 presidential campaign. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected by late June, and the ruling could finally force Trump to provide access to those records and is expected to have long-lasting implications for the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
This is an interesting process that is being made available to the public via audio for the first time in history due to the coronavirus pandemic. Is this the first time you are listening to oral arguments at the appellate level? What about this process do you find interesting? What questions strike you as most interesting? What questions from which Justices are intriguing? (The fact that Justice Thomas is asking any questions at all is highly unusual.) Do any of the arguments made by attorneys make particular sense to you? What do you find most interesting about today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the demand to disclose Trump’s financial documents to Congress and the New York Attorney General?
One last matter of business-if you are not a paid subscriber to the SHERO newsletter, please consider getting a paid subscription now. Paid subscriptions allow me to keep posting critical news for the public, such as these quick info/comment pieces. You will be supporting female-driven, independent journalism for everyone, while getting exclusives behind the pay wall that no one else has access to. Thanks for supporting SHERO.
I don't see this Supreme Court doing anything that will allow these tax records to be released. At this point, the Supreme Court (and the Federal Bench in general, the way things are going) is nothing more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party.
I was working on a 911 system so missed a quite a bit. What struck me on the parts I did hear was how utterly stupid the arguments where. This shouldn't have even got this far. The lower courts should have stood and he can turn over his financials like anybody else. Honestly it sounded like something you would here in the good old CCCP judicial system. We thought the whole "Temporary immunity" thing was quite hilarious (Dispatchers & deputies).
Why can't the public, in 'normal' times see the Supreme Court in action visually? Say, through C-span. I think the president has too many powers which can be abused. Hopefully, this will not go to Trump's favor. (not this president who thinks he can get away with anything).
I listened to the oral argument this morning. I believe Mr. Letter was the counsel arguing that Congress has the Constitutional power of oversight and therefore are authorized to subpoena the Presidential personal finance records. There was standard introduced by Mr. Letter that required a subpoena to serve a pertinent legislative purpose and it not affect the President's ability to execute his responsibilities and duties. Some of the Justices, notably conservative Justices, questioned Mr. Letter what protections were in place to protect the President from harassment by the legislative branch. Mr. Letter gave a weak response that the courts were there to stop such harassments. He then continued to state that the subpoenas were directed to 3rd party entities and not the POTUS and therefore would place no burden on POTUS. Justice Thomas stated that perhaps these subpoenas would be burdensome in themselves but an aggregate of all the subpoenas from Congress and separate District Attorneys would be burdensome.
Overall, I believe that acts done in the name of the Office of the Presidency should be checked by Congress at a high standard, but the subpoenas in question during this case address Donald Trump, the private citizen. Congress should be able use subpoenas to investigative in order to create effective legislation. Previous Presidents have respected this concept, and in the case of Clinton v. Jones, SCOTUS determined that Presidents are not immune to ligiation of acts the committed before becoming President.
I have no faith in the Roberts Supreme Court.
I don't see this Supreme Court doing anything that will allow these tax records to be released. At this point, the Supreme Court (and the Federal Bench in general, the way things are going) is nothing more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party.
I was working on a 911 system so missed a quite a bit. What struck me on the parts I did hear was how utterly stupid the arguments where. This shouldn't have even got this far. The lower courts should have stood and he can turn over his financials like anybody else. Honestly it sounded like something you would here in the good old CCCP judicial system. We thought the whole "Temporary immunity" thing was quite hilarious (Dispatchers & deputies).
The toilet flush alone speaks volumes...
Why can't the public, in 'normal' times see the Supreme Court in action visually? Say, through C-span. I think the president has too many powers which can be abused. Hopefully, this will not go to Trump's favor. (not this president who thinks he can get away with anything).
I listened to the oral argument this morning. I believe Mr. Letter was the counsel arguing that Congress has the Constitutional power of oversight and therefore are authorized to subpoena the Presidential personal finance records. There was standard introduced by Mr. Letter that required a subpoena to serve a pertinent legislative purpose and it not affect the President's ability to execute his responsibilities and duties. Some of the Justices, notably conservative Justices, questioned Mr. Letter what protections were in place to protect the President from harassment by the legislative branch. Mr. Letter gave a weak response that the courts were there to stop such harassments. He then continued to state that the subpoenas were directed to 3rd party entities and not the POTUS and therefore would place no burden on POTUS. Justice Thomas stated that perhaps these subpoenas would be burdensome in themselves but an aggregate of all the subpoenas from Congress and separate District Attorneys would be burdensome.
Overall, I believe that acts done in the name of the Office of the Presidency should be checked by Congress at a high standard, but the subpoenas in question during this case address Donald Trump, the private citizen. Congress should be able use subpoenas to investigative in order to create effective legislation. Previous Presidents have respected this concept, and in the case of Clinton v. Jones, SCOTUS determined that Presidents are not immune to ligiation of acts the committed before becoming President.