Supreme Court Orders: Read It For Yourself
Plenty of news coming out of the Supreme Court this morning:
First off, in news sure to get an overreaction, SDNY and Cy Vance might be getting more records from the Trump Organization:
A lot of big stuff in today's SCOTUS orders. https://t.co/atGKe6GHrH
For starters, SCOTUS finally denies Trump's request to block Cy Vance's subpoena (without comment or dissent). Vance will finally get his hands on more Trump financial records. pic.twitter.com/ucCoRLad0k
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 22, 2021
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday, Feb. 22, denied Donald Trump a stay in Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s case for the former president’s financial records.
The Manhattan DA recently escalated his criminal probe with the hire of outside counsel Mark Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor known for his expertise in untangling complex financial dealings and white-collar crimes. Pomerantz has already interviewed former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. In recent months, it was also reported that Vance’s office interviewed former Deutsche Bank employees and employees with insurance broker Aon.
In Oct. 2020, the then-president’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court for the second time to shut down Vance’s criminal grand jury subpoena for Trump’s tax returns. Now that Trump has been out of office for more than one month, the Supreme Court declined to grant that request.
Recall that in July 2020 the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Vance 7-2 that the then-president was not absolutely immune to the state criminal process. This decision, which included suggestions for Trump on how to argue against the Vance subpoena, was sent back to the district court on an expedited basis.
Also:
Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch endorse the radical proposition that SCOTUS has authority to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Thomas claims mail voting is inherently suspect, unreliable, and rife with fraud. pic.twitter.com/DpQwPgl20Q
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 22, 2021
The Court took the out of the issue being moot since Former President Trump is no longer president
The Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal from Republicans challenging a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed ballots received up to three days after Election Day to be counted to accommodate challenges by the coronavirus pandemic.
The court’s action is the latest sign that the justices have no interest in cases concerning the 2020 election results. Lawyers for Republicans had argued that the state court exceeded its authority and should have let stand an Election Day deadline passed by the state legislature. Democrats responded that the state court was within its authority to protect the right to vote amid a pandemic.
Last October, the justices denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to review the decision on an accelerated basis, the second time the court considered the Pennsylvania issue.
Read the Supreme Court Orders for yourself here:
supremecourtorders
Thomas need to recuse himself on any case where his wife is a public psycho.Report
Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch endorse the radical proposition that SCOTUS has authority to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Gotta love originalists being original.Report
Ah yes, the legal theory that State legislatures have a Super Saiyan Mode when crafting election rules for federal elections, not subject to the State Constitution or the State judiciary. I’m honestly surprised they haven’t floated the theory of Super Super Saiyan Mode, wherein the Governor’s veto is also no applicable.
It’s like originalism for idiots.Report
Well Republican politicians certainly think so. David Perdue even said today – as he withdrew from campaigning for a Senate seat he JUST declared for – that Democrats don’t represent the majority of Georgia voters. Poll results say otherwise. But I’m sure thats because – just like the Pennsylvania SUpreme Court in Thomas’ eyes – they have no idea what they are doing.Report
I am a bit embarrassed to live in a country where one of the Supreme Court justices is willing to put his name on a dissent that includes that miserable bit about mail ballot security. He cites two lawyers, as quoted in a single New York Times article from several years ago, speaking about the New York absentee ballot system. A sentence from each, of the “many people say” flavor. And from that he implies the Pennsylvania legislature’s entire mail ballot expansion shouldn’t have been allowed.Report