SCOTUS hears Important Trump case, left praises Sotomayor’s questions


On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments that include an effort to release Trump’s tax returns. The President’s argument rests on whether the Court decides the requests from the Democrat House are political and not intended for legitimate oversight. This is a very important ruling for the presidency, not just the president.

A few weeks ago, the justices asked both sides to weigh in on whether the dispute between Trump and House Democrats is fundamentally political and, therefore, beyond the reach of the courts.

A ruling that the courts are powerless to resolve this fight could translate into a loss for Trump since he wouldn’t have any power to stop his accounting firm or banks from handing over his records.

It’s not clear what will happen if the Supreme Court steps aside. Losing the courts as a referee in fights over subpoenas could also be a longer-term victory for the presidency, as Congress could lose its ability to make high-level executive branch officials actually comply with their subpoenas for documents or testimony, according to ‘Five Thirty Eight.’


The Wall Street Journal reports, “Mr. Trump has broken political norms by refusing to release his returns, but the Court will have to consider whether letting Democrats subpoena them will do more lasting damage to the country’s law and institutions.”

Justice Sotomayor Sotomayor asked today if there’s any other case where similar private records were blocked.

She suggested with her questions so far that the burden here isn’t as onerous as other subpoenas the court has upheld. Since these papers don’t belong to the president, but to the financial institutions.

Wall said he believes that makes the argument for that access even worse.


Justice Sonya Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, formerly sat on the Second Circuit appeals court in New York for more than a decade. That’s the same court that decided against the president in the Deutsche Bank and Vance cases.

Sotomayor notes there is a “long history” of allowing House subpoenas as long as there is a “conceivable legislative purpose.”

She is very, very far-left and will always decide on the most anti-right, far-left decision. Jonathan Turley has also said she is not smart enough to be on the Court. Her decisions are personalized diatribes which seem to support that contention by the George Washington law professor.

Given this, the left is watching her questions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments