How about a 7th! ?
Justice department to release a less-redacted version of the Mueller report!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/12/politics/justice-department-mueller-report/index.html
@TricCT loved the Ding Dong DOnnies gone! I have the feeling he will not win. They are getting more and more desparate. It's like the throw something against t he wall and see if it sticks offense. Tulsa ask him not to hold this rally and he responded by saying he is going to expand the rally to 60,000 people over two venues. He is just such a baby. Even that holy man Pence has ask the governors to not report the correct numbers so they can hold their rally. They will get their crowd and in a few weeks when the attendies are sick or dying they will all moan and groan. If they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the love of the Great Orange Bouffon so be it. I wish them luck they are going to need it.
I too worry about the voter suppression. Here in Ky we can vote by mail in for the primaries. I had no problem getting my ballad but some who have posted on nextdoor app are still waiting for theirs. To help correct this they have opened a polling station at the Fairgrounds where you can go to pick up a ballad or just go ahead and vote. My worries are the Senate race here for the Democrat to run against AmyMcGraft. Her main opponent is a young state senator running as a progressive and backedby Bernie. His followers are typical BernieBots "our guy or noone. His ads have been anti-McGraft instead of Anti-Mitch. Don't get me wrong this guy is really good,has great ideas and would be a good Senator. So would Amy McGraft. He and his campaign have spread lies about Amy being a
Trump-Democrat. Really? Is there such a thing. Amy's reply is she would do what is right for the people of Ky not for the party which tells me she is not aRepublican. I'm afraid if Mr Booker is the candidate (and I am a vote Blue no matter who) they are infor a rude awakening. When you live in a state where 30-40% of rural adult white males are members of the KKK, a black man doesn't have a great chance of beating Mitch. I know how that sounds and I hate it, but I have lived in this commanwealth for 68 years and change is not something that is popular in the rural areas. This is how Mitch has been elected for 36 years. Oh well only time will tell. I will just hope for he best.
I heard that the Orange nightmare wrote a letter to CNN asking them to "cease and desist" in reporting his dropping poll numbers! ?
Well I checked the latest numbers on realclearpolitics myself and saw something I've not seen in YEARS - a poll in Arkansas of Trump vs. Biden by Talk Business/Hendrix College that had Trump up by only 2 points to Biden. That is the smallest I've seen his lead in that State in years. And in all the battleground states: Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, N. Carolina, Arizona and Minnesota - Biden is ahead.
@triciact Here is a reliable news link to what you heard: Trump demands CNN retract a poll as another poll company sends a rosier view of his prospects. l
Thanks Jeanne! I couldn't get that link to work but here's the NYT and NYmag of the same story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/us/politics/trump-cnn-poll-oann.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/donald-trump-crazy-cnn-letter-retract-apologize-poll.html
Well, everyone. It seems that Trump has had a busy week, and we haven't reached the half-way mark yet.
And it is about to get much, much worse.
Yes, we are all aware of the recent Supreme Court case decision stating that people can't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. I can't believe I am saying this, but I am proud of Gorsuch, by the way.
But now we have a few more cases that will have decisions announced by June 30. One is on abortion, one on DACA, and one of Trump's taxes.
The abortion case is from Louisiana, where the Republicans there passed a law stating that all physicians who preform abortions must get licensing rights at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility. This law, if it should go into affect, would result in all but one abortion clinic to be closed, and would only allow one doctor to provide for the needs of all the women in the state.
This case should not even be heard, as a nearly identical case was heard and struck down in Texas a few years ago. But that was before the Republicans stacked the court. :P
DACA is another hot button issue and basically another Trump made disaster in the making. Trump seeks to declare DACA illegal so he can hold millions of innocent children and young people hostage (aka-threaten to deport them). Trump hopes that the Supreme Court will declare the program invalid, then approach Democrats with a deal such as "I won't deport the children, if you give me more funding for my big, beautiful wall."
Finally, there is the case where Trump is trying to declare himself above the law by saying he has soverern immunity and thus no one can prosecute him while he tries to hide his taxes.
Now, if Trump lost all three of these cases, that would be the best case scenario. He will rant, the conservatives and evangelicals will lose hope, and some will stay home as oppose to vote this November. Further, we can finally prove, once and for all, that Trump is a criminal (via his tax returns) and lay the groundwork for him to be prosecuted (and hopefully imprisoned) once he is booted out of office.
But let's look at the cases realistically. I say that, based on the commentary by the judges, it is likely that Roberts will be the swing vote for the Louisiana abortion case, with possibly Gorsuch joining. It is not because they are pro-abortion (they are both conservative), but because there was little to show why the Louisiana case is different from the Texas case. Roberts is an institutionalist, and thus is likely to side with the four liberal justices on this case. Gorsuch is another matter. My gut tells me he will join the conservative justices on this one. But so long as Roberts joins the liberal justices (as I suspect he will), then Louisiana's law will be thrown out. This will demoralize the conservatives and evangelicals, who will by this time wonder if their deal with the devil (aka-ignoring Trump's sins and declaring him God's anointed one despite his very, very un-Christian ways in exchange for packing the courts so they can make "Rape Great Again") is really worth the fact that their moral high ground is now non-existent.
But let's say that the justices surprise me and rule against the abortion clinics. Can you imagine the rallying cry of millions of women who will vote against Trump come November? I can visualize ads right now asking women what right does a sexual predator President and a sexual predator Justice (Kavanaugh) have to keep women from making decisions regarding their health. So this would be a no-win situation for Trump. Even if the evangelicals are thrilled, that will not override the overwhelming anger that millions of women voters will feel. It is the mad voters you need to watch out for. Happy or indifferent voters don't always go to the polls. Angry voters make sure they camp out there.
Now, the DACA case will likely tilt the other way. Based on past decisions (the travel bans), I bet that Roberts will pivot for Trump in this case and rule DACA to be illegal. But this will backfire on Trump big time. First, Trump will try to squeeze Democrats by trying to pressure them to give him money for his policies (funding ICE and his border wall). Then, when Democrats refuse, he will try to shift the blame on them and tell Hispanic voters that the Democrats don't care enough about them to work out a deal to keep millions of children from being deported.
But right now, this will not work. People will know that Trump created this crisis when he moved to abolish DACA. The Democrats can't be blamed for that. And the problem is the power Trump has. If he goes through his threat to deport children, then the Hispanic base will be angry against him. Further, officers (who are currently taking a public image hit in light of the recent deaths of several African Americans) would likely not be willing to be seen publicly dragging children away from their homes or schools to be taken to cages as they wait being deported.
I believe the Trump genuinely misjudged the timing on this case. Had it occurred earlier in his Presidency, his "make a deal in exchange for the hostages" might have worked. But we are only a few short months away from the election. Why would democrats agree to fund ICE and the wall knowing they would anger their voters by voting for policies that the Democrats despise? The better and more practical solution would be to wait a few months, vote Trump out, then use Biden to save the DACA children and still not give money to the policies that hurt their base.
But let's say I am wrong and the Supreme Court rules for the DACA children. This will demoralize the anti-immigrant, white supremist base of Trump's party. What can they argue now? They had a president who gave them two justices (one seat which they stole) and a conservative majority. It will be hard to get a rallying cry to pack the court with even more conservative justices when your previous efforts didn't work out. So either way, Trump will rue the day he decided to take on the DACA program.
Finally, the tax case. This one should be a no brainer. If a President can be subpoenaed to testify in a civil lawsuit (Clinton) and made to turn over tapes in response to a Congressional inquiry involving a criminal case (Nixon), then why the heck would Trump be allowed to shield his taxes from both a Congressional inquiry and a New York State criminal investigation.
Nevertheless, this is a situation where the conservative judges band together to save the president. But I don't think so. My guess is that several conservative judges will likely band with the liberal justices and rule that the taxes can be handed over in at least one of the cases. Remember that the justices can see the way this country is shifting, and they know that there is a good chance that the Democrats take over in 2020.
If you are like Roberts, you would have a difficult time trying to reconcile the fact that Trump could have powers that were clearly denied to previous Presidents. To do so would mean that, in the future, a Democratic president would use Trump's arguments to say that he or she is free from prosecution while in office.
Basically, in order for Trump to win, all five conservative justices would have to decide that Trump is above the law in direct opposition to existing case law. They may try to do this in an underhanded way, such as send the cases back in hopes that the two sides will try to work it out (basically, punt the cases until after the election.)
If I were to guess, I would say that Roberts will vote with the liberal justices. Further, I think that we will see a 6-3 split on this case, so Trump's taxes will be seen.
I would love it for the US Supreme Court to side against Trump on his taxes, and for Trump, who would fear what those taxes would unleash, would approach Democrats and agree to step down (resign) in exchange for letting the information stay under wraps. But this won't happen, because Trump is crazy.
This entire tax case may be a moot point, as Trump's niece is planning to release a book about Trump's life and his sinister financial dealings in August, during the RNC convention. It is all about the timing, folks!
And only another unrelated but legal matter, Trump lost again in court on a private matter. Last year, a woman named Jean Carroll told her story about how she was raped by Trump in a dressing room back in the nineties. When Trump called her a liar, she sued him for libel. She claims that the dress she wore that day contains Trump's DNA and has been petitioning the court to demand that Trump give a DNA sample for comparison. If Trump does and the DNA matches, then he has a huge problem, as there is no other way that he can show why his DNA would be on Carroll's dress unless she was telling the truth, thus proving Trump is a rapist (I can only imagine the Democratic campaign ads on that subject!)
Trump, in his usual, typical way, has done what he can to delay and/or dismiss the case. He has filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, because he claimed that he had moved from New York to Washington DC and/or Florida. Trump claimed that because he moved residences, the New York Court did not have jurisdiction, and therefore Carroll would have to fill in Washington DC (because that was where Trump was when he called Carroll a liar) and/or Florida (his new residence).
But then, Trump got caught. A few weeks ago, he was having a conference call with several governors where he was urging them to "dominate" the protesters. He got into an exchange with Cuomo, the New York Governor, and told him "I live in Manhattan. I live there" and urged him to use troops against the protestors.
So....Carroll's attorney got a tape of that conversation and provided it to the New York judge. Thereafter, the judge dismissed Trump motion for lack of jurisdiction, using Trump's own statements against him. The case will continue, and even though Trump will still likely delay the DNA sample on this case until after the 2020 election, the democrats could use it to their advantage and challenge Trump to give one "to prove he was innocent." If he didn't, then that will speak volumes to undecided voters.
Don't you just love karma?
Wow I kept hearing that we would win some and lose some. I have a weird feeling that applies to both DACA and the Taxes. Not sure how exactly, but that was before I read your posting. I read your posting twice because everything you said is what I discussed with my husband on what would happen involving these cases, just not as clearly as you put it. Thank you Allyn - I love hearing your legal eye view of this stuff!
Thank you both for your kind words. Again, court, by nature, is unpredictable. Clients come to me all the time and demand that I tell them what exactly will happen in their cases, It has gotten to the point that when they do that, I tell them "hold on, let me get my crystal ball!" I then proceed to pull out a crystal ball (a Halloween prop I acquired a few years ago) and place it on my desk. This has always resulted in my clients laughing uproariously at my sense of humor and for the situation to calm down.
Sometimes humor is the best way to solve tension.
Sadly, I do not have any psychic ability, but I do admire people who do have it. While I can't contribute anything using the second sight (or, in my case, the lack thereof), I can keep my eyes open and use the first sight, my own observations, to try to determine the most likely outcome.
I can only base my guesses (and yes, they are guesses) by comparing the existing case law and the way that the judges have decided in the past. This has been extremely difficult of late due to the arrival of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, as I have no past Supreme Court decisions to compare. But sometimes an appointment to the Supreme Court acts as a liberation of sorts. While Roberts was lauded as extremely conservative, he has ultimately proven to be moderate on some stances. Being the justice of the Supreme Court means that you can't be removed or voted out just because you issued an opinion that the party who sponsored you may not like (at least, not presently). Therefore, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may surprise me. Remember that Kavanaugh may chose, as a means of self preservation, to vote against conservatives in the Louisiana abortion case.
Why? Because Kavanaugh knows that the Democrats are planning to target him. If he votes against abortion now, just before the 2020 election on a weak case, then the Democrats will use that as a means to (1) try to impeach him for lying to Congress if they get a super majority, or (2) stack the court and thus make the five conservative justices a minority instead of the majority. Democrats could potentially get away with this, as statistics show that by 2024, the Republican base will no longer be a majority, as more and more younger, multi-racial voters come into play and the older, white voters die of old age. In short, the future favors the democrats, as the republicans have done everything they can to drive away a big portion of their own base (aka-suburban women).
Because of this, I believe there is a possibility that Kavanaugh might side with the liberals on the abortion case and then just claim "hey, it's a weak case to begin with!" Further, he might believe that by voting with the liberals on this one case, then Democratic voters will no longer consider him a huge threat and thus will allow him to bide his time and vote against abortion when the stress of an election year is no longer being felt.
Of course, this has a huge risk for Trump. If one or both of his justices vote against abortion right before the election, I don't see how Trump's base can be energized to vote. If anything, they will feel as though the situation is no longer worth the political costs. This means that Trump will face an even wider margin of defeat in November. But we will see what happens and if Kavanaugh is willing to save his own skin by voting against abortion on this one case. We will see.