LogFAQs > #941881403

TotallyNotMI posted...

So if I'm understanding now, both cases are basically saying that while a president isn't above a law, both cases still have to go back to the lower courts which can lead to Trump objecting again and just delaying things until after the election?

I've skimmed Mazars, haven't gotten to Vance yet but based on what I've read from analysts on Vance while F5'ing is that they rejected the "temporary presidential immunity" BS that Trump was arguing but rather than order that the grand jury's subpoena be enforced immediately, they sent the case back down to the District Court to basically say "okay Trump's argument here is BS. You may continue and he can try another argument if he wants."

Like ultimately SCOTUS is saying of course the subpoena can be enforced the president isn't a king but in such a way that Trump's defense team can keep trying to stall the clock.

As for Mazars: Roberts + Liberals + Gorsuch + Kavanaugh does reject the extremely high standards Trump's defense was arguing the House needed but they also rejected the House's argument that since they're after personal records and that Trump was suing in his personal capacity that it didn't represent a separation of powers issue and the lower courts all accepted that argument for the most part. The District Court didn't fully run with it and consequently didn't give the House the benefit of the doubt it normally would in such cases but SCOTUS is saying they didn't sufficiently argue out the merits of how this affects separations of powers and sent it back down to District Court with instructions that all parties do that.

Alito dissented by saying "I'd sent it back too but imooooooooo the House's case is weak and I'd make the instruction be that the House has to show more."

Thomas dissents by saying "Congress shouldn't be able to issue legislative subpoenas to personal records period."

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?