The Supreme Court is likely to issue its decision on whether President Trump, Deutsche Bank, and his accounting firm will have to obey subpoenas for his personal taxes and financial records; information as it pertains to investigations by Congress and a New York prosecutor during the summer in the middle of the 2020 General Election campaign.
We will find out in a few months if we are living in a Democratic Republic or lawless dictatorship. The approaching decision of the Supreme Court could throw the entire Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on a bonfire.
No matter what anyone says, the decision made by the Supreme Court will set a precedent whether the President of the United States is above the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas clearly will take the side of the Trump White House. During the oral arguments, Justice Thomas made it clear he believes the subpoenaed records “private documents” and inferred Congress and prosecutors in New York have no power to issue enforceable subpoenas. This would turn the rule of law on its ear and would provide an exemption for the President of the United States. There is no such exemption in the U.S. Constitution.
But other conservative justices on the Supreme seemed skeptical of the White House’s defense. Justice Samuel Alito seemed more willing to make the case that the subpoenaed documents don’t fall under any laws or rules about the Office of the Presidency because they preceded the President being in office. He asked…
The documents “are about personal activities from before they were elected?”
Trump’s team was arguing that the Office of the Presidency has the power to protect Trump from the beginning of his life and into the future. This protection was never afforded to Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. Protection that neither bothered to make since the Supreme Court wasn’t a political arm of the government but an equal branch that ensured the rule of law when they were president.
“Heck, yes!” Professor Taub exclaimed at one point…
“Alito is saying what about statutes of limitations or practicality. Why couldn’t grand jury subpoenas move forward from the state as if presidential immunity then a president could get away with a crime?”
Fellow Justice Stephen G. Breyer also had questions about people being able to sue the President and leaving it up to local courts to decide whether the person has standing. Taub paraphrased Breyer by saying
“Cases might not survive, but we don’t prevent” them from bringing them.”
“Why not just require [the] president to show why it’s [an] undue burden and lack of connection,”
Taub cited Breyer saying…
“He wins. That’s Clinton v. Jones. Why not the same here?”
Breyer asked why Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow wasn’t litigating over the burdens it places on the Office of the Presidency.
Sekulow argued that he doesn’t want courts to have a case-by-case decision about those suites; he wants blanket immunity for President Trump; if Trump is forced to comply with both the Congressional and New York prosecutors subpoenas. It couldn’t come at a worse time for the President and the Republican Party politically.
Chief Justice Roberts has repeatedly stressed there weren’t Obama Judges and Trump Justices. Yet, if the conservatives side against Congress's ability to subpoena a President, they will be creating a dictatorship free of Congressional oversight.
The danger of making Trump a dictator should not be dismissed as impossible. Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow's argument of lifetime immunity would allow Trump to order the arrest and instant execution of all Democrats on his whim, and he would have immunity from prosecution for life.
If the Supreme Court throws out Congressional oversight, it will be destroying the American experiment in Democracy and setting the stage for the collapse of the United States, much in the same way the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Supreme Court Heading Towards Big Trump Ruling - MSNBC