Browsed by
Tag: Supreme

Trump lawyers return to Supreme Court to fight financial records subpoena

Trump lawyers return to Supreme Court to fight financial records subpoena

The legal wrangling is a follow-up to this summer’s decision by the court that the president is not immune from a criminal investigation while he holds office. But the justices said Trump could challenge the specific subpoena, as every citizen may, for being overbroad.

Vance is seeking eight years of the president’s tax returns and related documents as part of his investigation into alleged hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 election to two women who said they had affairs with Trump years before. Trump denies the claims.

Investigators want to determine whether efforts were made to conceal the payments on tax documents by labeling them as legal expenses.

In the latest round of litigation, Trump’s lawyers argued to a district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that the subpoena to Trump’s accounting firm Mazars is an overbroad “fishing expedition” and that it was issued in bad faith to harass him.

Those claims were rejected by the lower courts.

“We have considered all of the president’s remaining contentions on appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal,” said the unanimous 2nd Circuit panel, affirming a 108-page opinion by a district judge.

Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court both of those decision were faulty and that the subpoena was not narrowly tailored but was instead based on one issued by Congress.

This subpoena, which makes sweeping demands and is copied from Congress, crosses the line — even if it was “aimed at ‘some other citizen’ instead of the president,” wrote Trump’s lawyers William S. Consovoy and Jay Alan Sekulow.

“The court of appeals not only ignored how the district court stacked the deck against the President,” the petition continues. “But it also broke every rule and precedent applicable” to the legal procedure at issue,

Read the rest
Why a more conservative Supreme Court may be bad for small business

Why a more conservative Supreme Court may be bad for small business

An interior view of the Supreme Court shows the bench draped with black bunting in honor of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Washington, U.S., in this handout photo released to Reuters on September 20, 2020.

Collection of the Supreme Court | Reuters

Less than 45 days before the election, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed on, leaving her seat open to a contentious fight that could remake the Supreme Court for generations to come — as well as Main Street.

A case this week exemplifies the wonky, under-the-radar policy changes that could have major implications for small businesses, who are pinned against corporations that the conservative majority has all too frequently favored. Yet this case has an atypical showing of more than 40 state attorneys general lined up in support of small business, a unique yet critical alliance that is appropriately warning the court of the significant consequences an adverse ruling may have to the small business community, and what a consolidated pro-corporate majority could mean for the future.

In 2015, Markkaya Jean Gullet’s Ford Explorer rolled off the road as a result of a tire failure, landing on its roof and killing her in front of her husband and two young children. Earlier that same year, Adam Bandemer was in the passenger seat of a Ford Crown Victoria when its airbag failed to deploy, resulting in a traumatic brain injury from which he will never recover. 

It is clear that Ford Motor Co. should be held accountable for the irresponsible design, safety testing, and manufacturing which inflicted devastating harm. And yet, on Oct. 7, the company will tell the United States Supreme Court that victims of its defective vehicles should not be allowed to file lawsuits in their home states against the company, but instead be forced to

Read the rest
Analysis: Why Both Candidates Dodged Questions on the Supreme Court and Health Care

Analysis: Why Both Candidates Dodged Questions on the Supreme Court and Health Care

Sen. Kamala Harris dodged questions about whether she and Democratic presidential nominee favor adding to the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court. Vice President Mike Pence wouldn’t answer questions about how the Trump administration would handle pre-existing conditions, a popular part of the Obama-era health care law the administration has tried to repeal and said it would replace.

There’s a simple reason these candidates wouldn’t answer those direct questions: They pose complications in winning over voters.

Ms. Harris’s avoidance of taking a position on so-called court packing helps the Democratic ticket avoid a sticky issue within the party. Polls show that adding justices to the nation’s highest court hasn’t really caught on broadly.

But the liberal side of the party is particularly inflamed about the Supreme Court after Republican senators in 2016 blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and yet are moving quickly to confirm Mr. Trump’s pick just weeks before Election Day. Many liberals are calling for the addition of justices.

Pre-existing conditions is one of the most broadly favored parts of the health care law. Mr. Trump hasn’t released a health-care plan of his own, even as his administration tried to dismantle the law that passed under Mr. Obama’s watch.

If voters tuned in wanting clear answers to those important questions, they didn’t get them during this debate.

Source Article Read the rest