The Supreme Court Halts Lower Court Ruling for President Trump Tax Returns….

The Supreme Court has halted a lower court ruling that granted the Committee on Oversight and Reform access to President Trump’s tax returns.  However, that’s not necessarily the lede.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers. The House issued a subpoena in February for eight years of the president’s tax returns, which the Committee then later argued was part of the September House impeachment investigation.

All of the surrounding court rulings are predicated on accepting a constitutional process for an official impeachment investigation is underway.  However, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will likely challenge that assertion.  To wit, within the buried lede to the background issue we find this paragraph:

On Monday, Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)

The general counsel for the House, Doug Letter, knows that a SCOTUS ruling against the House endeavor could severely damage the legal and constitutional framework of the entire impeachment enterprise.  Therefore it is in Speaker Pelosi’s best interests to instruct Doug Letter to defer or stall a SCOTUS review until the impeachment crew has framed their partisan impeachment process.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the House impeachment process.

There is an important granular aspect to the validity of the House impeachment process that few are paying attention to.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.  The House of Representatives does not want the Supreme Court to hear any case that touches on the impeachment “inquiry”.

In addition to the Trump Tax Case, there is another case from the HJC where they are attempting to use the framework of a constitutional impeachment process as the underlying authority for their endeavors.  That case surrounds the Grand Jury (6e) material from the Mueller investigation.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS or the HJC case in the DC Appellate Court, or SCOTUS, it means there is no constitutional foundation recognized to the “impeachment inquiry.”

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch then: (a) Pelosi/Lawfare have to restart the process with a genuine House vote; or (b) the ongoing impeachment process will have no recognized constitutional standing; and (c) the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote, cast without recognized constitutional standing.

That is why Nancy Pelosi and Doug Letter do not want SCOTUS to weigh in.

BACKSTORY to HJC case: On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.

Additionally, and most importantly, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.  In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”

The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the DOJ “stay” motion.

The DOJ then appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.  The DC Appellate Court heard arguments within the appeal.

Right now; and considering the House voted on a ‘resolution’ to support Nancy Pelosi’s unilaterally decreed “impeachment inquiry”; and due to the lack of structural specifics within the constitution surrounding the impeachment process; I would put the odds at 50/50 the House Judiciary Committee could win this case based on lower court rulings.

It is critical that AG Bill Barr sends his best constitutional lawyers to defend the interests of the executive branch.  The DOJ has a solid constitutional argument to make; and if they end up losing the decision the verbal arguments will be a key factor in whether the Supreme Court would take up the issue (after en banc appeal exhausted).

The HJC objective is simple.  They seek judicial enforcement authority for their subpoenas so their targets cannot legally refuse to give testimony; and by extension the constitutional premise of the House process is affirmed.

The premise for both fronts: (1) document subpoena 6e material, and (2) testimony from White House Counsel Don McGahn, is predicated on penetrating a constitutional firewall that exists within the separation of powers.

Under existing SCOTUS precedent, the White House can be compelled to deliver Executive Branch documents and testimony so long as an official legislative branch impeachment process is underway.

Judge Beryl Howell was the first person in the judicial branch to recognize and accept the HJC position that such an official impeachment process was ongoing.  At the heart of this appeal is that recognition.

If the DOJ can successfully argue the House has not followed the traditional and constitutional process that authorizes impeachment investigation; and allows the HJC to penetrate the separation of power firewall; it will be a major blow to the Lawfare scheme.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would invalidate the narrative of the House.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would also allow the Senate to dismiss any results from Schiff and Nadler’s investigation, because their process would not be predicated on constitutional provisions for impeachment.

In short, this is a pretty important ruling.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

203 Responses to The Supreme Court Halts Lower Court Ruling for President Trump Tax Returns….

  1. Bogeyfree says:

    After AG Barr’s speech about how the Judiciary and Legislative Branches of government are attacking relentlessly the Executive Branch, maybe AG Barr himself should argue this case before the SCOTUS.

    At least we know he is passionate about this issue.

    Liked by 16 people

    • ristvan says:

      Traditionally, SCOTUS argument is by the Solicitor General or his/her staff. The Solicitor General is presently Noel Fransisco, nominated by PDJT, sworn in 19 Sept 2017, and HIGHLY competent. He just brilliantly argued DACA. We are in good hands.

      Liked by 32 people

      • WES says:

        Ristvan: Where does the Solicitor General sit in the DoJ pecking order?

        Liked by 1 person

        • ristvan says:

          Reports directly to AG Barr. A BIG position. Unlike most other direct reports who have major management/administrative duties (Wray runs the FBI), the Solicitor General ONLY prepares to argue SCOTUS cases on behalf of the United States. Intensive legal preparation/practice for each hour of actual argument.

          Liked by 19 people

          • WES says:

            Ristvan: Then very good for President Trump if AG Barr has his back!

            Likely also means 110% preparation or you look like a fool!

            I have to “assume” SCOTUS doesn’t suffer fools very well!

            (“Ass-u-me” is a very dangerous word in engineering!)

            Liked by 3 people

            • 19tballonboy says:

              We all “assume” that enough gravitas exists within these Justices but have seen narrow opinions on many fronts which just adds to the “confusion”. This is a big deal and one side or the other will lose bigly. All I have seen is an endless carnival baseball water dunking contest to see who gets to dunk the “orange man” while this will have serious long-term consequences. To the uninformed among us, a bag of flour, eggs, chocolate and milk automatically makes the Pelosi cake when the reality is it is just a mess on the floor. There must be some legalistic latin expression that says essentially that 10 non-crimes don’t add up to 1 crime ever and I hope the Justices know the phrase including the Liberal side. It is like executing someone for 100 petty non-violent crimes. Mass hatred is for elections not political executions.

              Liked by 3 people

            • jello333 says:

              I can’t even imagine the courage it takes to stand up in front of the Supremes. The only “experience” I’ve had was in law school* during moot court competition. Even though it wasn’t a real case, there WERE real judges hearing the arguments, and a “gallery”. And yeah, pretty nerve-racking.

              (* Long time ago, and didn’t finish… long story… 😉 )

              Liked by 2 people

          • And would this also mean that ONLY the solicitor general argues for the government?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Dutchman says:

            Well, we’ll see what happens. On the optimistic side, LAWFARE has a pattern of LOSING when appealed.
            And, PDJT has a pattern of WINNING on appeal.

            So, lets all think happy thoughts, and pray for Judicial wisdom.

            Liked by 10 people

      • De Oppresso Liber says:

        Pigglosi has to pray the America haters can prevail at SCOTUS, because she does not have the votes to impeach President Trump, and more democrats are defecting every day.

        At a presser last week, Pigglosi herself stated (paraphrasing) the house had not decided whether or not to impeach the president, and that they were still looking for information.

        Can that public statement of fact be used by the Solicitor General in any argument before SCOTUS, or is it irrelevant?

        Liked by 6 people

        • ristvan says:

          Highly relevant to this appeal and can be used.

          Liked by 8 people

        • Allard Otten says:

          I wonder if the impeachment inquiry was designed to be an inoculation against negative impact of the reports that are due. It was timed to be disrupted by the reports being published officially at a point where a lot of reasonable doubt was cast at POTUS. That way, they could argue the reports were just a diversion by POTUS to get attention off the inquiry. Look at all the energy Maria B spent saying that the reports were imminent. It all got deep into the weeds after that, it seems (Maria’s a white hat).

          The tax release case fits, in that scenario, only because it is meant to cast dispersion in POTUS’s direction. There’s no real legal ‘need to know’ basis to it. Lawfare.

          So the good guys decide to draw the inquiry out and Schiff gets overextended and gives the good guys a lot of attack vectors on his flank. Schiff wants to double down, but the air’s out of the balloon at this point already, so what does Schiff do for 3 more weeks?

          If going back to the Mueller investigation (POTUS lied to Mueller) is any indication, it seem to me they shot their load completely and are at the throwing their empty guns at POTUS stage. When the moderates finally get a ggod look behind the curtain it will get ugly.


  2. Arrest Soros says:

    We see why appointing so many judges has been so important.
    America has become a nation run by lawyers. Not by the people, not even by politicians. The joint is run by lawyers (hence the decline).
    Just like the ruling class of a 3rd rate banana republic own the judges and can get whatever they want, in America the ruling classes shop for judges and get whatever they want.
    The ONLY stumbling block has been the supreme court and that has been a close run thing (yeah I’m looking at you Roberts, you dirty bastard).

    Forget everything else, unless the courts are brought under control, America will eventually become a land of lawless ruling classes. The dirtiest and meanest will crush all opposition.
    (we also see why Soros has been concentrating on lower level officials such as Attorney Generals and judges). Act local, think global.

    Liked by 16 people

  3. peace says:

    I would like to see the taxes belonging to ALL the politicians – Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Ryan, Comey etc. They all have made way, way too much money that didn’t come from the paycheck for the job.

    Liked by 9 people

    • trump20162024 says:

      Agreed. I’m sick of these swamp dwellers get wealthy by selling out the American working class, and then angling to use the IRS against our President, who made his fortune outside of the District of Corruptocrats.

      1,000 LEGAL up votes for the Trumpster and you.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Brant says:

    Given Barr’s rather detailed and pointedly directed speech at Federalist, here is hoping that Barr does not want to be labelled a fool if either this SCOTUS ruling goes sideways, the Mueller docs release goes upside down, or the IG report or Durham findings are big piles of steaming poop.

    Hope he realizes he has painted himself into a corner if these important rulings go against him. Maybe he is assured that things are going in the right direction that he gave the speech.


  5. magachris says:

    Speaking of SCOTUS, let’s face it, Justice Ginsburg isn’t getting any younger…
    With impeachment an issue that will presumably wind up on the high court’s docket, it effectively blocks PDJT from having his nomination, if it becomes necessary, confirmed before the end of his first term.
    I feel very strongly that the seat held by Justice Scalia is what propelled then citizen Trump over the top in 2016, never Trumpers held their noses and pulled the lever for him solely because of the vacant seat. Conservatives turn out in force when it comes to the Supreme Court. However, I don’t care to put my theory to the test again, there’s too much at stake.

    Liked by 2 people

    • yucki says:

      Conservatives turn out in force when it comes to the Supreme Court.
      I saw a great deal of that in 2016.
      (And it’s been at the very top of my personal voting agenda.)


  6. dallasdan says:

    “In short, this is a pretty important ruling.”

    Another very clear and highly informative commentary. IMO, it appears Roberts is the linchpin, and that is a legitimate cause for concern.

    Liked by 3 people

    • WES says:

      DallasDan:. Near the bottom of the older comments column, Ristvan very nicely addressed all of the legal points. Worth a read! You will sleep better for sure!

      Liked by 8 people

    • ristvan says:

      DD, you are an interventional cardiologist. I would trust my beating heart to you.
      I am/was only a lawyer trained at the US number one law school, graduating with honors.
      IMO, CJ Roberts is much better than most Treepers recognize, because of his masterful four part Obamacare opinion, which Treepers do not like but also do not understand:
      Part one did jurisdictional judo to take on the appeal.
      Part two said would be unconstitutional (good and clear), but…
      Part three said constitutional under alternative taxation authority (a proper political punt)
      Part four said Obamacare ‘optional’ state impositions were clearly unconstitutional, the very first clear limit on the interstate commerce clause. Part four will live forever.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dallasdan says:

        Thank you for your very kind vote of confidence. I would consider your healthcare to be a patriotic priority.

        Your legal credentials are beyond impeccable, and your earlier comment in which you described the gifted SCOTUS gold cuff links was both impressive and stated humbly. I have absolute respect for your opinions/comments, and regard you as a “treasure in the Treeper tree.”

        Your points regarding CJ Roberts are enlightening. I readily admit to not understanding the intellectual and judicial nuances contained in his O-care ruling. However, I am sure of my periodic disappointments in him since he joined the SCOTUS.

        As with so many of my patients, I have to accept that many outcomes are beyond my control, even on my best days. So shall it be with my feelings for CJ Roberts.

        I have enjoyed our interaction. Thank you, and may you and your loved ones have a safe an Happy Thanksgiving.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Denise Moitoza says:

    November 12th has come and gone. What happened?


  8. ABF says:

    I wonder if DOJ could and should argue that the rules put forth under the “inquiry vote” violate the constitutional rights to due process of the Executive. Therefore, how could the process voted on by the House be deemed an impeachment per the constitution, if its processes are unconstitutional? Success in this line of argument would not only negate subpoena power but be a political disaster for the dems. The inquiry could be shut down by the supreme court as currently being implemented. I am not a legal scholar, or have such training, but this seems to be common sense to me. Hope to get thoughtful comments on this.


  9. Bigly says:

    Outsiders, you’re not welcome inside our little club!

    Progressive libtards can’t even understand trump didn’t collide with Russia and the call with Ukraine was perfectly legal, imagine their heads exploding when they see on line 42d trump inserted a number with 17 zeros behind it.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Magabear says:

    The Piglosi/bullSchiff/Lawfare plan read well, but the on stage performance is currently getting a zero score on Rotten Tomatoes. 😁


  11. Gadsden says:

    I don’t see this particular impeachment inquiry as providing sufficient grounds to gain access to the records. There is no allegation in this instance of financial irregularities as pertains to DJT’s finances prior to holdIng office and the Ukraine phone call. I would imagine the Supreme Court would require the house to adhere to the 4th Amendment and show Probable Cause. I expect the the Supremes – even some of the liberals to back POTUS if the House argument is weak due to the dangerous constitutional precedence of baselessly attacking another branch of government. If for no other reason than it would open the Supreme Court itself to attacks from the legislature or Executive Branch.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Putting On Its Shoes says:

    Something is missing here.

    On the tax return question, it seems that would be independent of whether an impeachment process is recognized or not.

    I don’t think any court is going to suggest that an impeachment process gives the House access to material irrelevant to the impeachment articles, which would need to be defined. There is no predicate for the tax returns in the Ukraine issue, and likewise there is no predicate for the tax returns in a contemplated obstruction article.

    Further, the house has argued that they want them for legislative purposes. So to change directions and say they are for impeachment, without drawing a direct line on how they relate to the impeachment investigation items, would be transparently disingenuous, and likely rejected.

    I can’t imagine that the SCOTUS will say opening an inquiry gives you access to anything and everything. I think they will uphold the need for well-founded predicates — in the interest of due process — for material that would need to be produced. The tax returns don’t qualify.


    • ms doodlebug says:

      They aren’t limiting themselves to just one cause for impeachment. They are putting together a list of (excuses) to impeach. If one doesn’t work, maybe another will, and it only takes one…

      Liked by 1 person

      • Putting On Its Shoes says:

        Yes but on the tax question they need some predicate to ask for him they can’t just ask for anything. And they’ve already given up the ghost as to their real reason that they wanted which is for legislative purposes pursuant to their first request. As I stated clearly above none of the impeachment inquiries have established any predicate or probable cause on the tax question, and they made their original tax request through the channel That would be for legislative purposes. To change it now would be completely transparent. I’m not saying they won’t try that. I just think Fair minded adjudicators will see through that and say no you can’t have tax information without an appropriate predicate and no you don’t get it for legislative purposes because this is clearly targeted and you didn’t ask for the right material for legislative purposes including tax returns from other real estate people nor tax returns from prior presidents nor limiting their request to only those periods while Donald Trump was the actual president


        • Denise Moitoza says:

          Now they have fabricated an IRS whistleblower to make it look like they have a reason to be asking.


          • Putting On Its Shoes says:

            But that is not what is being adjudicated. If they want tax for impeachment, that have to make a separate request. This adjudication is whether ways and means is entitled to these under statute for legislative purposes. If they want to assert a probable cause in impeachment, that is a separate cause of action, which hasn’t been developed, researched, briefed and argued, and isn’t remotely ripe under the current cause of action going through the courts.


          • Putting On Its Shoes says:

            Just because congress is trying to make it up as they go along, doesn’t mean that a “serious” court will go along with it. Yes, some District judges are unserious and will mash it all together, but SCOTUS will be more precise.


        • ms doodlebug says:

          I agree with you except I don’t see this as a serious attempt to remove PDJT from office. I see it as an attempt to interfere with his 2020 re-election. There are no laws against trying their case in the court of public opinion. Democrats are depending on a percentage of voters to buy into at least one of every ‘charge’ they allege.

          Liked by 1 person

  13. jello333 says:

    ** No president “under the cloud of impeachment” should be allowed to make any extremely important long-term decisions.

    ** One such decision is Supreme Court nominations.

    ** Trump is “under the cloud of impeachment”.

    ** Therefore Trump should not be allowed to nominate a replacement to any coming vacancy until the cloud is lifted.

    THAT is a huge part of what’s going on with this phony “impeachment inquiry”.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ivehadit says:

      I don’t think Mitch is going to care about that. If the nomination is made, the senate will approve, assuming we have a majority. I can’t imaging any republican going against a nominee to replace RBG. They would be booted out of the senate by their constituents in a nano-second.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. jeans2nd says:

    To continue to use Roe v Wade, i.e. unrestricted killing of babies, as a bludgeon against those who value life, the Socialist killing machine heavily relies on Stare Decisis based on the SCOTUS Roe v Wade ruling, and perhaps to a lesser extent the SCOTUS Stare Decisis of the gay marriage ruling.

    If Pelosi is successful, it would negate the Stare Decisis of the three preceding impeachment activities. This would open a pathway to negation to the Stare Decisis of Roe v Wade.

    Wonder if Pelosi and the Letter guy has considered this?


  15. ChampagneReady says:

    Somebody must have told Roberts that Brennan’s THE HAMMER 12-year illegal spy system is dead and can no longer be used to blackmail him.


  16. HickTick says:

    First off I would tell the court that they only want the Tax returns so they can leak them to their friends the media . What reason could they have other than trying to hurt the President .
    The court should set them up , threaten them about any leaks then give them a fake return with some suspect figures and wait for them to leak .

    If the senate has a trial Roberts will have to recuse himself because he allowed the crooked FISA court to persecute the President .


  17. Brant says:

    Ristvan, thank you for your continuing wonderful commentary. A commenter referred to your “comment near bottom of the previous page” and I went searching with my ancient iPhone 4.

    I saw at the bottom of your comment about maladministration changed to “high crimes and misdemeanors”, “The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment.”

    While my below comment is off specific topic, I find historic British law so wonderful for our own law and constitution. Here, I refer specifically to our 2nd amendment as compared to the “1689 British Bill of Rights”.

    Using the there is this dandy little piece………”That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”

    I use this all the time in any 2nd amendment discussion. I note the similarities AND differences. 1689 says “subjects which are Protestants”, ours makes no distinction, “the people” and most importantly, 1689 says, “as allowed by law”, ours says, “shall not be infringed”. Also, “subjects” are specific individuals, not a group of people.

    The 1689 British Bill of Rights was less than 100 years old. Many of our founding fathers were in London frequently and knew very well this document. They specifically changed the British right to mean individuals and changed “as allowed by law” to “shall not be infringed”.

    Absolutely no confusion of meaning, background, or source document.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Jamea says:

    If the Committee on Oversite and Reform is granted acess to the tax returns of the President of the United States we should demand to see the tax returns of every scumbag member of Congress.


  19. James says:

    If the Committee on Oversite and Reform is granted acess to the tax returns of the President of the United States we should demand to see the tax returns of every scumbag member of Congress.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. DiogeneseVindicated says:

    Can SCOTUS order the arrest and detention of players for open sedition and deliberate usurpation of the constitution including the deprivation of rights under color of law?


  21. Phil Bacon says:

    Not yet answered; who owns the tax documents?

    Are they President Trump’s and the Trump Organization’s released to the custody of an accountant for purposes of tax return preparation?

    Or, are they now owned by Mazars (possession is 9/10th of the law kind of thingy)?

    What does the answer mean for YOUR tax records handed to an accountant?

    Let’s hope SCOTUS comes to a right decision on this one or none of us are safe from the deep probe of government.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s