Unsurprisingly.
Reuters reports:
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared divided as they weighed President Donald Trump’s bid to prevent Democratic-led congressional panels from getting his financial records, with its conservative majority appearing to be concerned about improper harassment of the president by lawmakers.
In a major showdown over presidential powers, justices asked tough questions of an attorney for Trump and a Justice Department lawyer who both sought to justify a refusal to comply with subpoenas by three House of Representatives committees for the financial records.
But the justices also pressed a lawyer for the House to explain why the subpoenas were not simply harassment of the Republican president. The nine justices heard an oral argument lasting more than 90 minutes by teleconference.
Sotomayor suggests burden isn’t as onerous as other subpoenas SCOTUS upheld: These papers don’t belong to the president—but to the financial institutions. They involve activities before Trump was in office. Trump himself doesn’t have to turn anything over. https://t.co/mvnuG0ZK7O
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 12, 2020
If Justices are merely “umpires” as CJ Roberts claimed, than Trump should lose these cases 9-0, just as Clinton lost his claim to presidential immunity.
Any other result would expose something rotten at the Supreme Court. And in a way, it’s good to know that now.
— Ian Bassin (@ianbassin) May 12, 2020
Kagan to Trump attorney: “You’re asking us to do is to put a kind of 10 ton weight on the scales between the President and Congress and essentially to make it impossible to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned.”https://t.co/3zzOSfTFNQ
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 12, 2020
Jay Sekulow is right now before the Supreme Court arguing that Trump is too busy as president to have to turn over his taxes. pic.twitter.com/3rZnz91Gtu
— Jon Becker (@jonbecker) May 12, 2020
“Not a single thing is required of the President or the White House” to comply with these subpoenas.
The most impt words spoken by the House General Counsel at this Supreme Court argument.
These subpoenas don’t demand anything of Trump–other than not putting him above the law.
— Joshua A. Geltzer (@jgeltzer) May 12, 2020
Breyer asks if Watergate subpoenas were unlawful.
Breyer notes Watergate involved the very workings of the presidential office, as opposed to here which involves pre-presidential private info. Breyer suggesting this case is an even tougher road for Trump. https://t.co/mvnuG0ZK7O
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 12, 2020
Early read on Supreme Court argument:
— Liberal four (RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) entirely dug in against President’s position;
— Conservative four (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) not thrilled with Trump’s absolute positions;
— Roberts searching for middle ground.
— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) May 12, 2020
Supreme Court done with the Congressional subpoena cases.
Now we are into crazytown: Trump’s argument that, while in office, he cannot even be *investigated* by prosecutors.
— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) May 12, 2020
I’m listening to the Supreme Court oral arguments on Trump’s tax case (NPR has it here: Is anyone else listening to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court)https://t.co/S2NKV22Otm
Trump’s lawyers sound like dopes. That’s my legal opinion.
I yield back the rest of my time.
— Teri Kanefield (@Teri_Kanefield) May 12, 2020