Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think they might feel it's too important of a case not to take it up just so the two sides can say that the legal options ran thier course.

Another interesting point about the decision..
This is the second appeals court that casted a doubt about the policy that a president cant be indicted while in office. Basically what he did was remind everyone that the policy was never challenged in court.

Actually it has.

See Clinton vs Jones.

The Supreme Court has already determined that a sitting President can be tried in civil court under certain circumstances.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

In the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office.

In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.

Clinton vs Jones Wiki

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

LOL. I know that's the interpretation that White House talking points suggest.

Obama appointee or not, Judge Howell is a US Federal Judge in the Washington District Court.

We will get a chance to see what the Mueller Report evidence provides to an legally acknowledged impeachment proceeding.

(PS, in the real world, you don't get to ignore Federal Judges because of BS partisan politics.)

In the real world, federal judges are supposed to be non-partisan.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Gryphon66

You should probably change your headline to "Obama-appointed chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rules that AG should break the law"

She is on record as stating that a border wall is racist, FFS.

She’s the judge who reportedly approved of Special Investigator Robert Mueller’s request for a grand jury to question Trump officials.

Just.... LOL

Let's see what a real judge who has a higher standing then she does thinks about it.

The title is as required by T&C Lumi.

I know a lot of you adhere to the WH talking points on the Mueller Report pretty heavily, but that's neither here nor there, Judge Howell is still a US Court Judge, and we haven't quite gotten to the point where the Exectuive Branch can ignore that.

(Although, I'm sure some would love to see that.) Thanks for posting Luminari.

Actually, we are getting quite close to the point where the SCOTUS is going to have to rule on whether lower court judges have any legal standing when it comes to Executive actions and actions of the Executive branch.

Clarence Thomas hinted on this recently.

This would be the perfect case for it, since the judge is effectively telling the AG to break the law for political purposes.

Let's hope this is the case.

That would actually be terrible, if the lower courts cant take cases about the executive branch then the supreme court would be bogged down taking every case. It would break the system.

Actually, what it would do is stop stupid injunctions and rulings about Executive actions by judges that have no actual legal standing to rule on the subject.

It would get rid of judge shopping by the left to block something they don't like because politics.

a reply to: Notoneofyou

That's a nice story, isn't it?

The highest court in the land is plainly partisan.

a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not sure how you personally define "right and left" but I'm curious ... are you suggesting that Republicans/conservatives/right-wingers don't game the judicial system?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Notoneofyou

That's a nice story, isn't it?

The highest court in the land is plainly partisan.

Was it partisan 2 years ago? 8? 12?

Are lower courts partisan?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm 53 and I have always heard about the conservative and liberal members of the Court.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's always bothered me. The courts have always been partisan, at least in my lifetime, and I am not much younger than you.

This is not how the Founder's foresaw things.

ETA: I will say Conservatives do tend to not vote together, it seems to be the liberal justices that always vote the same along agenda lines. I honestly can't remember a time when a liberal Justice crossed party lines to vote with Conservatives.

Please quote a law that states Trump can't ask foreign countries to investigate something

There is none.

This comes down to what his true motive was: There is no financial gain for Trump, apparently the Ukraine is doing some kind of investigation into Biden, the Obama administration was warned about "improper appearances"......

Trump asking China is also "legal"

The president has some latitude because of executive powers.





a reply to: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not sure how you personally define "right and left" but I'm curious ... are you suggesting that Republicans/conservatives/right-wingers don't game the judicial system?

are you saying it's ok then??

I could have sworn you looked down on this sort of thing

Maybe I am confused

drop the keybaord make, a double post

a reply to: Gryphon66

The problem with everything going on right now is pandoras box is open, and we will never have a functional govt again unless the regular voters finally get smarter and stop reflex voting based on the letter next to the name of the candidate rather than for what the candidate stands for.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's always bothered me. The courts have always been partisan, at least in my lifetime, and I am not much younger than you.

This is not how the Founder's foresaw things.

ETA: I will say Conservatives do tend to not vote together, it seems to be the liberal justices that always vote the same along agenda lines.

I've been surprised by Roberts a time or two. I suppose we could look up to see how often the Justices vote along "party" lines. Might be an interesting discussion thread ....

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

The problem with everything going on right now is pandoras box is open, and we will never have a functional govt again unless the regular voters finally get smarter and stop reflex voting based on the letter next to the name of the candidate rather than for what the candidate stands for.

Absolutely agree.

And I don't like the likely choices: anarchy or autocracy.

If just limited the stranglehold that the Democrats/Republicans have on the States in terms of Primaries, we'd have a better chance.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's always bothered me. The courts have always been partisan, at least in my lifetime, and I am not much younger than you.

This is not how the Founder's foresaw things.

ETA: I will say Conservatives do tend to not vote together, it seems to be the liberal justices that always vote the same along agenda lines.

I've been surprised by Roberts a time or too. I suppose we could look up to see how often the Justices vote along "party" lines. Might be an interesting discussion thread ....

I just looked fast.
www.usatoday.com...

Conservative Justices seem to be able to evaluate on merit, not agenda. Liberal Justices seem far less able to do so.

The only time a Liberal Justice will join Conservatives is when it's unanimous, It is very rare for one of them ever vote a different way than the rest.

A partisan SC has always troubled me, and that to me is the epitome of what is wrong. Very troubling.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We need to stop seeing ourselves as Democrats or Republicans and as Americans. Until we can do that I don't think there is hope for change.

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not sure how you personally define "right and left" but I'm curious ... are you suggesting that Republicans/conservatives/right-wingers don't game the judicial system?

are you saying it's ok then??

I could have sworn you looked down on this sort of thing

Maybe I am confused

You are not confused. I am not at all a fan of the false dichotomy of left and right, but I do recognize that others think that way.

To think that only one "side" is dishonest, double-dealing and dirty is just illogical to me.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

We need to stop seeing ourselves as Democrats or Republicans and as Americans. Until we can do that I don't think there is hope for change.

Indeed.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Part of the reason I will never vote for a D or an R again is both parties in different states changed the rules on the VPOA in the last 48-72 hours before the signature deadline to prevent third party candidates on the ballot in 2016.


I honestly see two sides of the same coin, both hopelessly corrupt.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

We need to stop seeing ourselves as Democrats or Republicans and as Americans. Until we can do that I don't think there is hope for change.

Indeed.



I second that! I am getting so tired of all these games and fighting. So much could be getting done that isn't even being discussed. It is becoming sickening to me, literally sickening...