And so, it begins..

[SMOGZINN]

Thing is that a lot of these judges they are appointing have precious little experience and are most definitely political hacks. Let's see how often these clowns get appealed and the cases are thrown out. Betcha it's going to be a lot.

The GOP is not dumb, they are not wasting their time appointing to lower courts, many of these appointments are to the appeals courts. Say what you will about them but they certainly know how to rig a system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thing is that a lot of these judges they are appointing have precious little experience and are most definitely political hacks. Let's see how often these clowns get appealed and the cases are thrown out. Betcha it's going to be a lot.

After Trump is tossed I should not be surprised if Ginsberg leaves and more liberal justice comes in. If the Dems impeach intelligently the Senate Reps may follow on Trump's coattails when they come up for election. Not Mitch of course since his state has gone satanic, but perhaps enough to make Republicans a minority.

 

[HomerJS]

After Trump is tossed I should not be surprised if Ginsberg leaves and more liberal justice comes in. If the Dems impeach intelligently the Senate Reps may follow on Trump's coattails when they come up for election. Not Mitch of course since his state has gone satanic, but perhaps enough to make Republicans a minority.

There has to be a Democratic takeover in the Senate. Turtle would just claim it was a coup, refuse to hear any nominees and say we'll wait for the voters to choose next time.

 

[Jhhnn]

I figure Garland will recuse himself from the three judge panel who will rule on Trump's appeal. Dunno what happens next if they refuse a stay.

 

[HomerJS]

I figure Garland will recuse himself from the three judge panel who will rule on Trump's appeal. Dunno what happens next if they refuse a stay.

Why should he? This isn't Mitch McConnell's case.

Although maybe he could wait a few days to hear the appeal, that way time would run out to get it to the SC.

 

[trenchfoot]

Heh, just because the Repubs picks for judges are prioritized by how partisan they are doesn't mean that the Dems pick theirs the same way. It seems to me that Obama's picks were more on the moderate side of things whereas McConnell's picks are right wing batshit certified.

One fine day McConnell is going to wake up in bed and see that Karma had straddled his chest, his neck in her hands and is smiling down at him as she tells him how the debts he had piled high as high can be has come due and he is going to pay and pay dearly for the injustices he had committed against the nation.

This I believe without doubt.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I figure Garland will recuse himself from the three judge panel who will rule on Trump's appeal. Dunno what happens next if they refuse a stay.

I see no reason for him to. Do you think that Gorsuch will recuse himself if/when it gets to the SCOTUS?

 

[Viper1j]

And ANOTHER wall comes a tumbling down!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/jud...ive-trump-financial-records-to-democrats.html

Judge says Deutsche Bank, Capital One can give Trump financial records to House Democrats

• A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday said Deutsche Bank and Capital One can turn over financial documents related to President Donald Trump and his businesses in response to subpoenas from House Democrats.
• Judge Edgardo Ramos’ ruling came after a hearing at which lawyers for Trump, his three older children, and the Trump Organization argued that the subpoenas should be quashed.
• His decision came two days after another federal judge, in Washington, D.C., said Trump’s accountants at the firm Mazars had to comply with a congressional subpoena for his financial records.

A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday said Deutsche Bank and Capital One can turn over financial documents related to President Donald Trump and his businesses in response to subpoenas from two Democrat-led House committees.

Judge Edgardo Ramos’ ruling came after a hearing at which lawyers for Trump, his three older children, Donald Jr. Eric and Ivanka, and the Trump Organization argued that the subpoenas to the two banks should be quashed. An appeal of the decision is all but certain.


Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that the Trump clan’s arguments “are not sufficiently serious as it relates to Supreme Court precedent” dealing with the question of turning over documents to Congress.

The judge also disagreed with the argument by the Trump legal team that the demands for the documents from House Financial Services and Intelligence committees lacks a legitimate legislative purpose. Ramos said there is such a purpose in the request by the panels, which are probing alleged foreign influence in U.S. elections.

The subpoenas, Ramos said, are “undeniably broad but are clearly pertinent.”

The White House and a spokesman for the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has said he is “fighting all the subpoenas” issued by House Democrats, who are conducting a broad inquiry into his financial affairs.

The ruling in the New York court came two days after another federal judge, in Washington, D.C., said Trump’s accountants at the firm Mazars had to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for his financial records.


Deutsche Bank for years has been the main lender for Trump, whom other banks have avoided loaning money to because of his repeated bankruptcies. Capital One is in possession of financial records related to the Trump Organization’s hotels. Neither bank had opposed the subpoenas.

In a statement to CNBC after the ruling, Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Kerrie McHugh said, “We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations.”

The Trump family’s lawyers, in a lawsuit filed against Deutsche Bank and Capital One in late April, challenged the demands for financial documents from the lenders, saying subpoenas from House Democrats “were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses, and the private information of the President and his family.”

Neither Deutsche Bank nor Capital One objected in court to the subpoenas. But House Democrats intervened in the lawsuit to argue against the Trump family’s effort to quash the document demands.

Ramos’ ruling came hours after the New York state Legislature passed two bills aimed at Trump, which would allow Trump’s state tax returns to be turned over to Congress if they are requested. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said he supports that idea, but has yet to say whether he will sign the bills.

The Treasury Department last week defied a subpoena from the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee for six years of federal tax returns of Trump and his business. But much of the information on those returns would be replicated in state tax returns.

During the court hearing Wednesday, Trump’s lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, argued that the subpoenas exceeded Congress’ authority by being overbroad. He noted emphasizing that the committees were “literally looking for records about minors” related to Trump, as well as his in-laws.

At another point, Strawbridge argued that courts have made it “clear” that Congress “cannot cross the line into law enforcement activity.”

Douglas Letter, an attorney for the committees seeking the documents, retorted that there is is “absolutely no merit to any of these arguments” made by Strawbridge.

“This is being totally misportrayed,” Letter said.

Letter said that the subpoenas are broad, and asked for documents going back a number of years, because the committee are investigating things such as money laundering and engagement with foreign entities — “including Russian oligarchs” — over “a long period of time.”

Ramos then asked why the committee was bothering to ask for “domestic documents” if that was the case.

“You have to look at: ‘where’s it going? ’ ” Letter responded, referring to money. “It’s all tied together.”

Letter criticized the Trump family’s legal effort to thwart the subpoenas, saying that the lawsuit only had been filed “because of a massive and fundamental misunderstanding” of Congress’ role “by Mr. Trump.”

“He sees us as a nuisance,” Letter said, referring to the president.

Asked by the judge if the financial records could be made public, Letter said that the committees did have that power.

But they “wouldn’t do it willy-nilly,” Letter insisted.

“We would of course listen” to the people whose records were subpoenaed, but ultimately “this is for the Congress” to decide, Letter said.

Lawyers for Deutsche Bank and Capitol One declined an opportunity to speak in court.

The judge said in his ruling that the attempt to block the subpoenas was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”

“The court concludes that a preliminary injunction” being proposed by Trump’s lawyers “is inappropriate,” Ramos said.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

“The court concludes that a preliminary injunction” being proposed by Trump’s lawyers “is inappropriate,” Ramos said.

That's the sweet part. Injunction? Must be joking. So Mazar, Deutsche Bank, and Citicorp will cooperate with Congress and I should think that Trump's taxes would be there. Still, I'd say hold Mnuchin for the year locked in a toilet or something because of contempt.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Unfair, partisan Obama judge giving dems a do over. No president before ever has been told they have to turn over documents to Congress as part of an illegal coup takedown of a totally legitimate president who never succeeded in obstruction of justice despite trying really hard.

It’s unfair that judges appointed by other presidents hear cases about Trump. It should only be Trump judges.

Wrong. Congress had passed the 1978 Presidential Records Act in the wake of Watergate. Nixon was required to hand over the tapes. Responsible GOP legislators who saw criminal wrong-doing voted to impeach.

If you think your so-called president is above the Law, and his excesses persist into the next term and possibly thereafter, the we can forget about the Rule of Law, and we can either have a civil war or something else.

But especially the idea that "only Trump judges" should judge Trump is completely contrary to the notion of the Law as either impartial or serving justice and the public. You can attempt to pursue a "political interpretation" of the Law to achieve your political ends, but at some point, the profession, understanding and practice of the Law will prevail.

Otherwise, maybe you would have liked living in Germany during the 1930s. Their judges and lawyers simply did the Fuhrer's bidding. If you see the Veil of Ignorance under which the Founders themselves deliberated, then you might shudder at what your own desires could bring back to haunt you in a Future you cannot predict.

You're out of your mind. I wish you'd get out of my country . . . .

 

[soundforbjt]

Wrong. Congress had passed the 1978 Presidential Records Act in the wake of Watergate. Nixon was required to hand over the tapes. Responsible GOP legislators who saw criminal wrong-doing voted to impeach.

If you think your so-called president is above the Law, and his excesses persist into the next term and possibly thereafter, the we can forget about the Rule of Law, and we can either have a civil war or something else.

But especially the idea that "only Trump judges" should judge Trump is completely contrary to the notion of the Law as either impartial or serving justice and the public. You can attempt to pursue a "political interpretation" of the Law to achieve your political ends, but at some point, the profession, understanding and practice of the Law will prevail.

Otherwise, maybe you would have liked living in Germany during the 1930s. Their judges and lawyers simply did the Fuhrer's bidding. If you see the Veil of Ignorance under which the Founders themselves deliberated, then you might shudder at what your own desires could bring back to haunt you in a Future you cannot predict.

You're out of your mind. I wish you'd get out of my country . . . .

His post was sarcasm.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

His post was sarcasm.

Then I apologize, Although subtlety is sublime, it is often missed. To put it another way, his parody of the Trumpie mindset was so genuine, I believed it on its face.

Someone else mentioned the Trump-GOP strategy of filling federal judge-ships in lower versus higher courts.

I can't make a prediction, but I cling to a reasonable hope.

Titans and legal scholars have already weighed in on the old law that gives Congress the right to obtain tax records of anyone, and public officials should be held to a more stringent application of the law than others. They are "public" officials. They have fewer rights than your run-of-the-mill citizen. Just as an aside, CIA careerists don't have First Amendment rights like everyone else: if they choose to publish a spy-novel, it must be vetted by colleagues before it can go to the publishers.

So I have some reasonable grounds to believe that despite the appointment of Kavenaugh and Gorsuch, there will still be a majority on the court -- including GOP appointees -- who simply decide on behalf of the written law, just as Mehta did.

If they don't, we're not going to be "Great Again". What is written is what is written. The Law is the Law. Just by way of argument, PUBLIC officials, at least those at the Federal level, should not be able to keep their tax filings private. The public -- and that includes the majority which Trumpies ignore and deny -- have a right to see those documents. They have a right to see the Mueller report with redactions only approved by congressional oversight -- honoring ongoing grand jury process, and reasonable national security considerations. And those national security considerations should not be those of the President, who is rationally suspect as a threat to national security himself.

And don't discount Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, either. They didn't study for the law so they could be GOP supporters. They would not have known in their early careers that they would be Supremes. They may easily depart from Trump's wishes to hold himself above the Law.

 

[Viper1j]

Wrong. Congress had passed the 1978 Presidential Records Act in the wake of Watergate. Nixon was required to hand over the tapes. Responsible GOP legislators who saw criminal wrong-doing voted to impeach.

If you think your so-called president is above the Law, and his excesses persist into the next term and possibly thereafter, the we can forget about the Rule of Law, and we can either have a civil war or something else.

But especially the idea that "only Trump judges" should judge Trump is completely contrary to the notion of the Law as either impartial or serving justice and the public. You can attempt to pursue a "political interpretation" of the Law to achieve your political ends, but at some point, the profession, understanding and practice of the Law will prevail.

Otherwise, maybe you would have liked living in Germany during the 1930s. Their judges and lawyers simply did the Fuhrer's bidding. If you see the Veil of Ignorance under which the Founders themselves deliberated, then you might shudder at what your own desires could bring back to haunt you in a Future you cannot predict.

You're out of your mind. I wish you'd get out of my country . . . .

Your post reminded me of US v Amistad, the trial that the movie of the same name is based on. That case went all the way to the Supremes.

During a dinner, the Spanish ambassador to the United States was said to have made a comment to John Forsythe, then Secretary of State. "Her Majesty the Queen, is most confused by the blatant display of independence that your courts have. How can you ever expect to survive as a country, if you cannot even control your courts?"

Mr. Forsythe stated "it is the very independence of our courts, that guarantee our survival as a democratic republic."

I do think that some people here, would like Donald Trump to be the "LAST" president of the United States.