SCOTUS Slow Walks or Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Back in the day, in the days of the Burger Court, some things were too important to delay. The Pentagon Papers cases were handled within weeks, prior restraint deemed to important to wait. The Nixon tapes case was handled from grant to decision in less than two months (end of May to end of July; Nixon resigned in early August ... a few justices were fine with waiting to October).  These days a "rush job" means taking the re-argument of the Citizens United in September to handle it before the next election cycle started. Then again, the conservatives won there. 

Friday again was a news day with the House Judiciary vote for impeachment in the morning and at least one of the financial document cases were due for a decision. To remind, multiple committees in the House of Representatives subpoenaed financial records from Trump's accounting firm and two lenders while the Manhattan DA also sought the accounting records as part of a grand jury investigation.  So, we are dealing with third party business records here (including but not limited to his tax returns).

Trump claims "no legitimate purpose" for the first and that as you know cannot be investigated even in that way while in office.  The lower courts basically laughed at these extremist arguments that require him to be removed by impeachment even to investigate him for murder.  A Trump appointee big on executive power wanted House to have an official impeachment inquiry first and once it occurred noted that wasn't how the request was offered here.  The House noted delay could interfere with impeachment and if all it took was resubmitting it, the matter wasn't worth granting anyways.  (They should go ahead and do just that.)

But, the Supreme Court held up things and well it isn't really surprising they granted cert.  You had someone on Chris Hayes show last night be blase about the whole thing and suggest he very well might lose big.  After all, he lost before.  How exactly Mr. Person Who Should Know Better (it wasn't a clown; it was someone who should have known better).  ACA.  No, that wasn't him.  Census.  Yes, that was so blatant that one conservative justice (Roberts) was not willing to give him a pass, but even there, it was a limited loss.  Got anything else other than some denials of stays and such?  Another sane law professor type on Twitter also said it shouldn't be taken as a big deal.  Executive vs. Congress. 

The opinions below should be upheld in their entirety. They shouldn't have been taken at all.  But, at best, at best, one is being optimistic in saying that justice will have a partial win here.  It is completely proper for people not to trust the good faith of the Roberts Court (Kavanaugh Court) here.  Plus, as was pointed out on the thread (I'll avoid links here since he's probably representative) and by Josh Marshall (not always so passionate, but pissed off here), the delay is a major part of it.  The matter is clearly time sensitive. Impeachment counts were voted out of committee just that morning.  BTW, isn't Roberts sorta biased here given he would preside over an impeachment trial?  (I guess that came up in the Nixon tapes case too, but we have actual counts now, including obstruction of Congress, not there when that case was granted.)  And, the financial, intelligence and electoral security issues involved are of compelling immediate importance. 

And, instead of doing things let's say in January, the whole process can take six months or so.  Plus, it is likely not to be as if the judgment is "okay, release" either.  The aftermath is likely to be at least somewhat lingering.  It is like all these other lawsuits (one loses track, but a key subpoena DISTRICT court ruling was just handed down recently; multiple emoluments cases are slowly going thru the courts; the D.C. Court just asked for further briefing on standing or whatnot in the Mueller Report grand jury litigation etc.) just a long drawn out affair.  This is why "House Dems should just continue to investigate and fight things in the courts" doesn't wash for me unless you bluntly admit you are against impeachment.  It just runs out the clock unless you know he's reelected. People repeatedly sorta of ignore that. 

The subpoena of executive officials or even those who have left official service is an important part of legislative oversight. Over the years, the executive department has wrongly taken a strict view on the president's power to refuse to allow the people to testify. The issue was never ultimately decided by the Supreme Court and it would be nice if there was a clear word on it though on some level it is also a political dispute.  If each house has the will, there are ways to punish noncompliance.  And, I'm not really optimistic that this Court would decide the matter in the proper fashion.  But, these cases aren't that.  A local prosecutor is somewhat complicated but even there only financial records are being sought.  The absolute immunity sought is ridiculous.

The power of Congress to obtain the records is basic. It is part of the wider obstruction of Congress only somewhat covered in the second impeachment court that Trump is blocking it here. It is fucking outrageous. We have continual litigation to provide some, SOME, bite to the emoluments limits, but if Congress cannot even obtain records in part to address them, what is the point, really? But, this is not just about Trump specifically, but as as noted in a brief opposed to the stay a wider concern for the security of our financial institutions and the threat of foreign interference overall.  This includes interference in the 2016 elections and addressing the ongoing harm (see, e.g., Robert Mueller's testimony).  As the brief notes, citing the lower court ruling:

public’s interest in the Committee’s efforts relating to election integrity, national security, money laundering, and foreign blackmail were “of the highest order” and outweighed Applicants’ personal interest in “nondisclosure of financial documents concerning their businesses.”

Again, yes, it's reasonable (though far from too pessimistic to think otherwise) to think that the ultimate result here is some sort of win to sanity involving the extreme executive power claims raised here.  But, extremists have an upper hand on some level, since they ask for so much that even getting some (including more and more time) things is enough to worry.  This is a part of a wider whole too.  While Trump is obstructing Congress, electoral security legislation is being held up in the Senate.  One reckons at some point some sort of thing will be passed, but what it will entail is unclear.  And, some want the House to delay more, have more litigation, instead of impeaching. The fear it will be unpopular is dubious.  And, it has various positive effects too. 

Think big picture, hold firm .. impeach ... fight for our values. 

===

There is a sort of "also ran" quality to it, but other notable cases were granted along with the three, these more appropriately so.  One involved a dispute in Indian lands that split 4-4, a vehicle found to allow Gorsuch (Stolen Seat Guy) to take part.  Also, I'll just quote SCOTUSBlog:

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot require recipients of funds to fight HIV and AIDS to have policies expressly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Today, in U.S. Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the government can apply that policy to foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups. Justice Elena Kagan is recused from the case.

Orders are due on Monday and I'll comment then.