The other principle is that under our constitution, when a president acts as a private individual, he or she has responsibilities like every other citizen, including compliance with legal process.But it’s also true that no person is above the law. But he seems to have found the court’s telephone arguments more congenial, and he has been a full participant in them.The sheer number and breadth of the congressional subpoenas, he said on Tuesday, was problematic. And on the other hand, you have the president, who says, I’m the head of a branch of the federal government, and I can’t be made to cooperate in handing over all kinds of sensitive material from my private business affairs for what looks to me to be like a partisan witch hunt.And from what you could gather during these oral arguments, how eager, or uneager, are these justices to resolve that major question between those two branches of our government?You know, some are more eager than others.

The framers saw this coming, and they structured the Constitution to protect the president from this encroachment.” “The House has put legislation where its mouth is. And a focused subpoena directed to, not the president himself, but to his accountants, in a legitimate criminal inquiry, is appropriate. And to empower the committees, to simply declare him a useful case study, is to open the door to all sorts of oppressive requests you could have.That, sure, Congress has some power to investigate in order to enact wise legislation. And that message seemed to resonate with many of the justices.Thank you, counsel. And that would be a nightmare.You can’t just look at the one subpoena. That would have the incidental effect of deferring a final decision beyond the 2020 presidential election.Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said the two sets of cases could have different outcomes.“The congressional cases appeared to split the justices on ideological lines, with the possible exception of Justice Breyer, who seemed genuinely concerned about excesses against future presidents,” Professor Dorf said, referring to Justice Stephen G. Breyer. But that this was partisan harassment, that they don’t need President Trump’s tax records to make tax law — they wouldn’t need his medical records to decide how to reform the Affordable Care Act — and that this is a kind of dragnet fishing expedition.The threat, in this case, of subpoenaing decades worth of papers, not only of the president, but of the president’s family members, of his children, of his grandchildren, as the House has done in this case, poses an obvious problem with respect to harassment and infringement upon the ability of the executive to discharge his duties.So the argument here from Trump’s lawyer is that the idea that these documents are needed for legislative affairs and legislative production is basically a fancy cover for just wanting embarrassing documents about the president.And what is the response from the justices?Well, the justices respond one by one. This is for while the president’s in office. I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision.During the hearing, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky pressed Fauci on why the country should trust his judgment.I have never made myself out to be the end all and only voice in this. Supreme Court Sets Date for Trump Tax Return Case January 31, 2020 at 12:41 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 49 Comments “The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the landmark separation of powers fight over access to President Trump’s financial records on March 31,” The Hill reports. It’s a more straightforward case.And why is it more straightforward than a congressional subpoena?There’s not a lot of precedent on congressional subpoenas, and particularly congressional subpoenas to the president. So this is a big separation of powers case, where on the one hand, you have Congress saying, we need this information to do our job, to make laws and move society forward. And I think there are multiple outcomes that are possible in the House subpoenas case.

Earlier this month the Supreme Court heard three cases dealing with subpoenas seeking information about President Trump’s businesses and financial activities, including records of his tax returns. And as much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end all. So it could be that although Trump has to turn over the records, they’ll be shielded from public view even so.And in that case you just outlined, Adam, the president’s tax records would remain secret.Adam, on a slightly more practical note, it occurs to me that the justices are going to be ruling in both of these cases at the end of their term. Right now, it depends on what you mean by containment. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Trump Tax Return Case Supreme Court justices and lawyers debated the merits of a case about whether President Trump …

Save to FavoritesTwitterFacebookLinkedInEmail,New CBS News polls: Florida: Biden 48%, Trump 46% Texas: Trump 48%, Biden 46% Save to FavoritesTwitterFacebookLinkedInEmail,A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds Joe Biden leading Donald Trump nationally by 8 points, 51% to 43%.
“They ask for all documents related to opening of accounts, due diligence, closing, requests for information by other parties, et cetera.