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.”
For the obsessed
Pelosi and Democrats don’t care about the Constitution. All they care about is trying to keep the full story of their extensive corruption from total exposure. They’re desperate.
May 11, 2020 – I’ve Seen Trump’s Tax Returns and You Should, Too
Today, April 11, the Supreme Court begins hearing argument on a case that will determine whether or not Trump and future presidents will be subject to the 100-year-old law that requires the IRS to make any governmental official’s tax returns available for confidential oversight review upon demand.
Are presidents and other government officials above the law? Must anything they say about their finances and possible conflicts of interest be automatically taken as the truth, or do constitutional checks and balances allow the truth of their statements to be verified? Stay tuned for the answer to that question. The current and future integrity of our entire constitutional system of government could depend upon it.
@Greg: Need a legal reason. Just wanting to see them to see what can be found is not a legal reason.
@Deplorable Me, #4:
Right. And we don’t need watchful policemen anywhere around town until it has already been legally established that a crime has been committed.
@Greg: If there is a suspected crime, then seeking the returns is appropriate. It is a violation of the Constitution to simply go fishing.
Because for at least several decades, every candidate for the presidency HAS released at least his or her RECENT tax returns, Trump’s refusal – and his by-now obviously deceptive explanation that his returns were in audit – creates what amounts to a presumption of guilt. No, there was never a requirement for such an essentially private revelation as a prerequisite for public service, but the Congress has a right to question whether or not it SHOULD be a requirement – thus the inquiry’s legitimate purpose. There IS here the aspect of fishing, but any examination of a candidate’s past has that same flavor.
Considering Robert’s desire to issue unanimous decisions on such important constitutional questions, and the split sentiments voiced by the Court on the central questions of these several cases, I expect a very narrow decision, one way or the other – one that gives neither side much to crow about.
@George Wells: He released a financial report, as he was required. If I were him, I wouldn’t give the goddamn Democrats anything that was not explicitly required by law. He is doing exactly what I want him to do.
Hell, we can’t even get Hillary to release emails that belong to THE PEOPLE and lying, crybaby, corrupt liberals wanted her to be President.