I like your line of reasoning here. By way of counter-argument, I don’t think Roberts will be the deciding vote. Constitution is silent on President having to submit a tax return as qualification for office. Don’t flame me, cuz I haven’t followed this case as closely as I should, but I think at least one of the liberal justices will side with the conservatives and hand at least a 6-3 decision on this one. Your second scenario may still well be in play, but I’m not convinced we see a 5-4 on this one. Balls and strikes and all that.
ETA: My bad as you told me to ignore the legal arguments.
They aren’t suing based on the constituion requiring president to submit tax returns. Congress has the power in constitution to request anyones tax returns for oversight iirc.
I think the chances the liberals give Trump a yes here is 0%. I don’t think our people are that much more high minded than theirs, and there is never a good reason to give them cover here.
Oh that’s right. I appreciate the clarification. Got caught in this damn timewarp.
1 Like
I would like to remind the audience that Trump’s defense is that he’s literally too busy WORKING HARD THANK YOU to hand over any documents (or, incredibly, for his accounting firm to do so).
7 Likes
I believe it all hinges on what the word shall means, but I actively avoid knowing too much law because I think the way they think about legality is inherently bad for thinking ethically.
from everything i read before, SHALL MEANS SHALL, which means you will do this motherfucker. And if they determine it doesnt mean that, it would upend the law world quite badly.
3 Likes
This is why ruling with Trump creates such an excellent case for court packing and further radicalizes people. They’d be very obviously calling a wild pitch a strike. Just wildly unsubtle.
I think Roberts sides with the word shall tbh. I think he cares more about his own long term power than he does about Trump being alive or dead, and he probably sympathizes with GOP Senators a bit but will feel slightly guilty about it… but will no longer even feel that when the hubbub dies down.
So for the Mazars case, aren’t we back to the premise that Congress can subpoena the tax records and has the authority (and obligation) to enforce the subpoena prior to courts ruling on the matter? While I generally agree with @boredsocial on his stance re: liberal justices, I still see the potential for at least one defection along the lines of kicking it back to congress to enforce their subpeonas. I’m not willing to die on this hill or anything but it seems plausible if not probable.
ETA: Belay all the shit I wrote. I seem to be confusing cases. I don’t think what I wrote is relevant.
Can we at least infer that Obamacare isn’t getting nuked into oblivion by this court at least not this session based on the fact that they went to the trouble of handing down this joke of a decision on contraception? Can I at least fucking have that today?
I can’t imagine they are ever nuking it before an election. It would turn a blue wave into Waterworld with Kevin Costner. They have enough dates to do it after the election this CY but they’d have to expedite it past the case backlog caused by COVID. Seems more likely they’d try that in a lame duck session than a Trump win but I don’t know the specific rules of what they can and cannot do.
1 Like
FYI, I don’t believe either of these cases are the ‘shall means shall’ case. Mazars is third party. Vance is a state’s ability to do this. I don’t think the Neal case (Congress wanting his tax returns directly) is this far. Forgive me if I have this wrong.
Do any of you who voted “other vote” want to call your shot for a trillion bonus Unstuck points?
I will be legit stunned if we ever see Donnie’s tax returns.
2 Likes
At this point I strongly suspect they just confirm that he’s a career money launderer who has no money. You know what everyone already paying attention knows.
2 Likes
nah i just looked it up, Mazars is where congress subpoena’d the accounting firm mazars. You are correct that Vance is the states DA office. So Shall means Shall should be part of the Mazars case.
We never were going to see his tax returns. All that stuff will/was going to be particular to NY state and Congress. This isn’t about making any of it public as far as I know.
And yea unless its leaked or something somehow we won’t be seeing it.
That and he’s never been an actual billionaire at any point in his life
1 Like
The Supreme Court will rule against Trump 7-2, with Alito and Thomas dissenting.
8 Likes