If the Criminal in Chief lost both the state federal tax cases, the CiC can still say "make me" and not produce his tax returns. The AG Barr certainly is going to take "no" for the answer.
I don't see how the NY case doesn't go forward. It's a grand jury subpoena of 3rd parties, I believe. They don't really get the option of delaying anything and Trump's attempt to intervene was already denied. Like I don't get how there's any more bullets on the "temporary absolute immunity" gun that wouldn't be summarily denied. Note, since it's grand jury we'll not see it anyway, unless Trump is it indicted which would be a great way to kick off 2021. And since it's a state case he can't really pardon himself.
what's fascinating is that Roberts wrote his only dissent of the entire term in this case. that should an interesting read
some early, "day of" analysis: https://reason.com/2020/07/09/break...l-records-cases-and-fate-of-eastern-oklahoma/ excerpt: Do the financial records cases matter politically? I doubt it. I doubt there is anything in the relevant records that would affect the November election, as I doubt they contain anything that would dissuade anyone voting for Trump who is otherwise inclined to support his reelection. Put another way, a voter who is willing to ignore or discount all that we already know about the President, is unlikely to care about (or pay attention to) financial improprieties of the sort these documents might uncover. But these cases may matter in a different way. By rendering 7-2 judgments in these two cases, and eschewing the partisan divisions that we see throughout our other institutions, the Court has demonstrated an ability to reach careful, balanced judgments on important separation of powers questions with deep political significance. That is a good thing.
What I do not understand is that it is obvious that some members on this current Court hear the partisan complaints and are impacted by them. Having Trump and Cruz act like the Court should rubber stamp every Trump policy position is NOT working out well for the Republicans and yet they continue to complain. The CJ of the Court who says little came out and said as much........... taking the position that "I own your loyalty" with the Court is really backfiring. Further it just makes the Republicans look weak because they appointed a lot of the Justices. They knew Gorsuch was a wildcard when they wanted him. They knew Roberts had little experience when they wanted him........ even Kavanaugh has upset them with some of his votes.
I think this is very true of the Robert's Court. Justice Roberts definitely wants to steer a very different path than Rhenquist, Burger and Warren before him and wants to see a more minimal role of the court with a clearer separation from the other branches. It's starting to look like Gorsuch might feel the same. This rule is in line with that. I thought it was a Constitutional slam dunk that the President wasn't above the law regarding financial documents. Roberts understands that such a ruling likely has an impact on the election and wanted to keep the Court out of the political fray.
Yeah it does seem that the conservative judges are asserting their independence and giving Trump the middle finger. I have to think his assault on the judiciary has backfired.
"The Supreme Court Just Confirmed The Electoral College Is Here To Stay": https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/09/the-supreme-court-confirmed-the-electoral-college-here-to-stay/ excerpt: In a unanimous verdict earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states have the power to punish presidential electors who refuse to vote for the candidate to whom they were pledged. So-called “faithless electors” have never altered the result of an election, but they could if enough of them acted together. Several, like the three in this case — Chiafalo v. Washington — conspired to do so in 2016. Their state government had a law against it and imposed a fine of $1,000 each. The Supreme Court’s opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by six other justices, held that the practice is legal. The remaining two justices agreed, although they had different reasons for doing so. The verdict puts beyond dispute the practice of requiring electors to follow the law and cast their votes not according to their own discretion but as conduits for the voters of their states. It also does deep harm to the viability of a few fringe ideas of modern leftists. By reinforcing the rules of the Electoral College, the court showed it would have little patience for Democrat efforts to destroy the system of presidential elections enshrined in the Constitution. If they wish to do so, the only method left to them is a constitutional amendment. more at the link
I'm not sure this is a fringe idea of modern leftist as Elector independence was one of the reasons why the Founders put them in the Constitution. To quote Hamilton, the Electors would be "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." Further modern leftist are for more direct democracy and rather than count on faithless electors want to abolish the Electoral College. Regarding this decision I'm surprised the court ruled the way it did given how clearly the Founders stated the Electors were to count on their own reason.
