ST Alpha - "Called it! ;-) -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 158

In response to "Vance can issue subpoenas to Trump - 5-4 Roberts -- nm" by JackDawson

Called it! ;-) -- nm

Posted by Marquis de Krusty (aka Krustylu) Jul 9 '20, 07:12

(No message)

Responses:

Outcome uncertain--the president may attack the subpoena on breathness or relevance grounds. but there is no categorical bar to the subpoena -- nm - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:13 14
- I don't know what this means, can you ELI5? - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:15 13
  - Trump said the Constitution prohibits States from subpoenaing a sitting president, period. SCOTUS Said: Nah, wrong. He can still attack the subpoena - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:17 1
    - Thanks! -- nm - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:19
  - He could still go back argue that *this* subpoena is invalid for reasons, instead of arguing that *any* subpoena is invalid because the constitution. -- nm - znufrii, silly old man Jul 9, 07:17
  - It got remanded back down for consideration but the President can't claim absolute immunity because he's President. - spamlet Jul 9, 07:17 9
    - What happens now? What is the lower court being asked to consider? Whether to allow Vance to subpoena the president? -- nm - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:18 3
      - So Vance goes back to court and this plays out for many more months. -- nm - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:20 2
        
        My instinct, as stated below, is that this will not take that long to play out. But, the grand jury subpoena and the materials obtained are protected - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:23 1
        
        I didn't expect to see his returns but I'm happy to see Trump squirm and have to answer to the law. -- nm - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:27
    - more - spamlet Jul 9, 07:17 4
      - (If I'm right about the below, I expect Alito will ahve said so--but haven't gotten there) -- nm - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:20
      - Those are all nice statements but given how the litigation has proceeded and the fact that this is a grand jury subpoena, I'm not sure what protection - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:18 2
        
        I have no idea on that. Just quoting the case :) -- nm - spamlet Jul 9, 07:20 1
        
        Yeah I mean scotusblog is posting those choice paragraphs without much analysis of them (they will post it later) -- nm - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:24

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.