The Supreme Court's announcement, that it has accepted for appeal three cases in which the lower courts ruled that Donald Trump's accountants and bankers must produce certain of his tax returns and other financial records, is an ominous development. If,
as many legal analysts had predicted, the right of Congress (and a local prosecutor) to obtain these records was a "slam dunk", the Supreme Court simply would have denied certiorari effectively sanctioning the lower courts' rulings.
Given the makeup of the Court, I suspect there is an appetite to step in to protect Mr. Trump. What is likely to happen is a 5 to 4 split with the outcome dependent upon whether Chief Justice Roberts' concern for the verdict of history and the public's
perception of the Court as an impartial arbiter outweighs his demonstrated tendency to uphold conservative, Republican interests.
The members of the Court who will favor Mr. Trump will first proclaim that they are not imposing a broad prohibition shielding a president from all investigation. Then, they will attempt to justify their position by arguing that the subpoenas were politically
motivated and part of an unjustified campaign of harassment; that Congress has not adequately identified a legitimate legislative purpose; that the articles of impeachment do not broaden Congress' investigative authority because they do not relate to the president's
alleged financial misconduct and that a local prosecutor may not investigate a sitting president.
All of these arguments are specious and would not pass the red-face test, let alone unbiased constitutional analysis. One can only hope that the better angels of CJ Roberts' judicial persona overcome his conservative mindset and save the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment