Jump to content

Trump Keeps Losing Court Cases Over and Over and Over Again


BarryLaverty

Recommended Posts

Opinion: Courts hand Donald Trump loss after loss after loss

(Washington Post)


By George T. Conway III
Contributing columnist
Today at 8:00 a.m. EST

Donald Trump is often his own worst enemy. But sometimes, he gets competition from his lawyers.

Perhaps no better example of that can be found than in Wednesday’s order from the Supreme Court, which summarily rejected the former president’s “emergency” request to block, on grounds of executive privilege, the release of documents to the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.


The court’s decision was a brutal, and personally stinging, loss for Trump. And the arguments his own lawyers advanced may have made the defeat worse.

Trump lost the case in virtually record time. He sued the committee and the National Archives on Oct. 18, lost in the district court on Nov. 9, lost in the court of appeals on Dec. 9 and lost in the Supreme Court on Jan. 19. And so, today, the Jan. 6 committee has hundreds of documents Trump desperately wanted kept under wraps.


It’s hard to lose in so many courts so quickly — unless, I suppose, you’re Donald Trump contesting election results. So much losing, you almost have to feel sorry for the former guy.

But it wasn’t just the speed with which he lost that was so merciless; equally harsh, if not more so, was the substance of the rulings against him. The decision of the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit was bad enough: A masterful and unanimous opinion by Judge Patricia A. Millett ripped to shreds every argument Trump made.

“The Committee has sound reasons,” Millett wrote, “for seeking presidential documents in particular as part of its investigation into the causes of the attack on the Capitol,” for a simple reason: “There is a direct linkage between the former President and the events of the day.” Indeed, the court concluded, “to allow the privilege of a no-longer-sitting President to prevail over Congress’s need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would ‘gravely impair the basic function of the’ legislature.”


In its perfunctory order, the Supreme Court actually made the situation worse for Trump. The court of appeals had relied, in part, on the fact that Trump was a former president — and that the sitting president had carefully reviewed and rejected Trump’s executive privilege claims.

Ordinarily, that would be a pretty strong argument to make to judicial conservatives, many of whom believe that all executive power is vested in a unitary executive — the current president.

But it was too much for the Supreme Court. The justices expressed concern that questions about whether a former president can assert executive privilege if the sitting president is willing to waive it “are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.”

So the justices actually cut back on the court of appeals’ decision: They held that, because the court of appeals had found that Trump would lose under any of the standards his lawyers had argued for — including precedents addressing privilege claims asserted by sitting presidents — there was really no need to decide what the scope of a former president’s rights should be.


In other words, the justices relied solely on the reasoning that Trump’s claims were so paltry, his privilege arguments so weak, that Trump would have lost even were he still in office.

Adding insult to injury, Trump’s own lawyers’ arguments may have helped bring the Supreme Court to that result. One of Trump’s arguments was that the lower court decisions “effectively gut the ability of former Presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often (as is the case here) a political rival.” The danger, Trump argued, was that “incumbent Presidents will indiscriminately decline to assert executive privilege over a former President’s records whenever they are of the opposite political party.”

That was an excellent point — one that apparently gave the Supreme Court pause. Think of it: What if we had a future president who was so narcissistic and vindictive that, to inflict political harm on a rival, he would reject a predecessor’s privilege claim in a circumstance that harmed the country?


Put another way, what if we had a future guy who was like the former guy — or perhaps even one and the same?

No wonder the justices left open the possibility that an ex-president could assert executive privilege over the current officeholder’s objection.

The result was an even more devastating rejection of Trump’s privilege claim — in effect, an unambiguous, blanket holding by the Supreme Court that presidents who incite insurrections in office don’t get to invoke executive privilege.

Good work, Team Trump. A grateful country salutes you.

  • SMH 1
  • Roll Eyes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Opinion: Courts hand Donald Trump loss after loss after loss

(Washington Post)


By George T. Conway III
Contributing columnist
Today at 8:00 a.m. EST

Donald Trump is often his own worst enemy. But sometimes, he gets competition from his lawyers.

Perhaps no better example of that can be found than in Wednesday’s order from the Supreme Court, which summarily rejected the former president’s “emergency” request to block, on grounds of executive privilege, the release of documents to the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.


The court’s decision was a brutal, and personally stinging, loss for Trump. And the arguments his own lawyers advanced may have made the defeat worse.

Trump lost the case in virtually record time. He sued the committee and the National Archives on Oct. 18, lost in the district court on Nov. 9, lost in the court of appeals on Dec. 9 and lost in the Supreme Court on Jan. 19. And so, today, the Jan. 6 committee has hundreds of documents Trump desperately wanted kept under wraps.


It’s hard to lose in so many courts so quickly — unless, I suppose, you’re Donald Trump contesting election results. So much losing, you almost have to feel sorry for the former guy.

But it wasn’t just the speed with which he lost that was so merciless; equally harsh, if not more so, was the substance of the rulings against him. The decision of the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit was bad enough: A masterful and unanimous opinion by Judge Patricia A. Millett ripped to shreds every argument Trump made.

“The Committee has sound reasons,” Millett wrote, “for seeking presidential documents in particular as part of its investigation into the causes of the attack on the Capitol,” for a simple reason: “There is a direct linkage between the former President and the events of the day.” Indeed, the court concluded, “to allow the privilege of a no-longer-sitting President to prevail over Congress’s need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would ‘gravely impair the basic function of the’ legislature.”


In its perfunctory order, the Supreme Court actually made the situation worse for Trump. The court of appeals had relied, in part, on the fact that Trump was a former president — and that the sitting president had carefully reviewed and rejected Trump’s executive privilege claims.

Ordinarily, that would be a pretty strong argument to make to judicial conservatives, many of whom believe that all executive power is vested in a unitary executive — the current president.

But it was too much for the Supreme Court. The justices expressed concern that questions about whether a former president can assert executive privilege if the sitting president is willing to waive it “are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.”

So the justices actually cut back on the court of appeals’ decision: They held that, because the court of appeals had found that Trump would lose under any of the standards his lawyers had argued for — including precedents addressing privilege claims asserted by sitting presidents — there was really no need to decide what the scope of a former president’s rights should be.


In other words, the justices relied solely on the reasoning that Trump’s claims were so paltry, his privilege arguments so weak, that Trump would have lost even were he still in office.

Adding insult to injury, Trump’s own lawyers’ arguments may have helped bring the Supreme Court to that result. One of Trump’s arguments was that the lower court decisions “effectively gut the ability of former Presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often (as is the case here) a political rival.” The danger, Trump argued, was that “incumbent Presidents will indiscriminately decline to assert executive privilege over a former President’s records whenever they are of the opposite political party.”

That was an excellent point — one that apparently gave the Supreme Court pause. Think of it: What if we had a future president who was so narcissistic and vindictive that, to inflict political harm on a rival, he would reject a predecessor’s privilege claim in a circumstance that harmed the country?


Put another way, what if we had a future guy who was like the former guy — or perhaps even one and the same?

No wonder the justices left open the possibility that an ex-president could assert executive privilege over the current officeholder’s objection.

The result was an even more devastating rejection of Trump’s privilege claim — in effect, an unambiguous, blanket holding by the Supreme Court that presidents who incite insurrections in office don’t get to invoke executive privilege.

Good work, Team Trump. A grateful country salutes you.

Another OP-ED from the person who has

image.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • LOL! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mellon said:

So, you don't worry about the idiot currently in the White House? YOu better start if you're not.

No, I don't worry, as I would take President Biden a MILLION times over Trump

. I am done with the Democrats trying to work with the other side, though, as the Trumplicans have ZERO interest in getting anything done, but election law that favors them, and I am ready to move on from that. 

  • Roll Eyes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

No, I don't worry, as I would take President Biden a MILLION times over Trump

. I am done with the Democrats trying to work with the other side, though, as the Trumplicans have ZERO interest in getting anything done, but election law that favors them, and I am ready to move on from that. 

I call BS. This regime of Leftist Democrats have done (let's hope not) irreparable harm to America and it's allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

No, I don't worry, as I would take President Biden a MILLION times over Trump

. I am done with the Democrats trying to work with the other side, though, as the Trumplicans have ZERO interest in getting anything done, but election law that favors them, and I am ready to move on from that. 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

Another OP-ED from the person who has

image.jpeg

All he citied with one court case, and he and Barry are spreading lies again that it's multiple court cases.  I suppose their jumping up and down from being so giddy has knocked their brain stems lose.  Silly libtards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

No, I don't worry, as I would take President Biden a MILLION times over Trump

. I am done with the Democrats trying to work with the other side, though, as the Trumplicans have ZERO interest in getting anything done, but election law that favors them, and I am ready to move on from that. 

Trumplicans have ZERO interest in getting anything done?  Did you hear Joe at his Press Conference saying, “Republicans aren’t for anything”, and that’s why you posted that?  Surely not.  Surely you don’t believe anything that senile (even more than me) buffoon says?  I can only hope I interpreted you wrong, but just in case, I’ll post this meme which was posted on another thread by @mellon.  Btw, can you name any liberals during Trump’s Presidency that promoted working together?

 

02094F07-CE2B-4A94-8E30-F51E2C8B2B75.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hagar said:

Trumplicans have ZERO interest in getting anything done?  Did you hear Joe at his Press Conference saying, “Republicans aren’t for anything”, and that’s why you posted that?  Surely not.  Surely you don’t believe anything that senile (even more than me) buffoon says?  I can only hope I interpreted you wrong, but just in case, I’ll post this meme which was posted on another thread by @mellon.  Btw, can you name any liberals during Trump’s Presidency that promoted working together?

 

02094F07-CE2B-4A94-8E30-F51E2C8B2B75.jpeg

Grudgingly, only a handful supported a long overdue infrastructure bill that will make a huge difference. The entire Trump era, now done, was about dismantling protections for the environment, then just anything a WASP would have on their shopping list. 
Republicans are about the Fox demographic, which is making sure angry and older white guys have their fears affirmed and their prejudices pandered to on the daily. There's no there there. Obstructing isn't good governance. 
And a personal note, the last 5 years have very clearly shown the immense hostility toward public education in stark detail. During the most stressful time ever for educators due to Covid, the CRT ##### started? Great timing. 

  • Stinks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

Grudgingly, only a handful supported a long overdue infrastructure bill that will make a huge difference. The entire Trump era, now done, was about dismantling protections for the environment, then just anything a WASP would have on their shopping list. 
Republicans are about the Fox demographic, which is making sure angry and older white guys have their fears affirmed and their prejudices pandered to on the daily. There's no there there. Obstructing isn't good governance. 
And a personal note, the last 5 years have very clearly shown the immense hostility toward public education in stark detail. During the most stressful time ever for educators due to Covid, the CRT ##### started? Great timing. 

Again I’ll ask, can you name any Democrats during the Trump Presidency that promoted working together? 

Did you read that list?  Are angry old white guys the only ones that want - Law & Order - Follow the Constitution - Secure Borders - Energy Independence - Fair Trade - No vax mandates - No Iran Nukes - Parents rights - No inflation - Strong Military?  Really?  Only angry old white guys want that?  C’mon Barry, at least post facts, not innuendo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hagar said:

Again I’ll ask, can you name any Democrats during the Trump Presidency that promoted working together? 

Did you read that list?  Are angry old white guys the only ones that want - Law & Order - Follow the Constitution - Secure Borders - Energy Independence - Fair Trade - No vax mandates - No Iran Nukes - Parents rights - No inflation - Strong Military?  Really?  Only angry old white guys want that?  C’mon Barry, at least post facts, not innuendo.

Looks like a long list of platitudes and cliches, not policy. Basically low hanging fruit not mutually exclusive to Republicans. What else you got? Oh, yeah, unneeded voting laws meant to repress the vote. Credit for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

Grudgingly, only a handful supported a long overdue infrastructure bill that will make a huge difference. The entire Trump era, now done, was about dismantling protections for the environment, then just anything a WASP would have on their shopping list. 
Republicans are about the Fox demographic, which is making sure angry and older white guys have their fears affirmed and their prejudices pandered to on the daily. There's no there there. Obstructing isn't good governance. 
And a personal note, the last 5 years have very clearly shown the immense hostility toward public education in stark detail. During the most stressful time ever for educators due to Covid, the CRT ##### started? Great timing. 

Except for the last sentence about teachers--this is nothing more than a TDS rant!!!!!

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Looks like a long list of platitudes and cliches, not policy. Basically low hanging fruit not mutually exclusive to Republicans. What else you got? Oh, yeah, unneeded voting laws meant to repress the vote. Credit for that. 

I sure wish he could prove those "repress the vote" comments, because for months we have been asking him to prove 1 demographic group that can't vote--legally? Can he, no way in devil land--yet it always comes back to "racism"--if the lies don't work--throw in racism to help your story. It's about the same everyday with our local Parrot boy. SMH. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

Looks like a long list of platitudes and cliches, not policy. Basically low hanging fruit not mutually exclusive to Republicans. What else you got? Oh, yeah, unneeded voting laws meant to repress the vote. Credit for that. 

Lol, Voter Integrity, another Republican goal, and you know the Dems don’t want that.  So since they’re not mutually exclusive, let’s see which ones are.

Law & Order - Not hardly, defund the police.  Fallow the Constitution - Nope, Trying to 3nd run Art 2 Sec 1.  Energy Independence - Heck no.  No inflation - No, want to spend more - excessive spending is what caused it. 
Enough, I’ve made my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...