Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't wait to see what the Supreme Court does with this. I think the decision will be very telling about the future of the Judicial branch.
When the Republicans were in charge of the House Oversight Committee they changed the rules to allow unlimited subpoenas, so the committee is just following the Republican precedent. The Supreme Court has upheld the oversight function of the House over various parts of the Executive branch for various purposes but has not ruled on specific oversight of the President for criminal violations. So it will be interesting to see how SCOTUS weighs in on this. I can see it going either way. I doubt SCOTUS will allow wide open fishing expeditions but I can see them allowing oversight of the President if the House believes a specific wrong was committed.
They could simply refuse to hear it and leave such matters to the lower courts. By having to decide the case, they will be setting precedent.
Right, which would be a tacit agreement with the lower court decision. That in itself is a statement that they are sticking with precedent, even with the DJT appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I'd be okay with that.
So, if a prosecutor says, "Bring in all your financial records so we can look for a crime." you believe you should have no choice and no warrant should be required?
Well, I've had to do that and no warrant was required.
Anyone who is audited at the state or federal level has to do that.
Does anyone believe government officials should have automatic access to people's records to look for crimes?
Of course they should - tax returns and such are signed under penalty of perjury and subject to audit by the proper authorities.
You don't know this?
In other news I can look online for the property taxes paid by most anyone, for the size of their homes and for many many other things. Didn't you know this?
Does anyone believe government officials should have automatic access to people's records to look for crimes?
No I don't believe so. But that is not the issue here. The issue is the extent of oversight the House has over the President. Whatever that is, it won't affect you or me.
No I don't believe so. But that is not the issue here. The issue is the extent of oversight the House has over the President. Whatever that is, it won't affect you or me.
So, you're claiming they have oversight over his personal life?
So, if a prosecutor says, "Bring in all your financial records so we can look for a crime." you believe you should have no choice and no warrant should be required?
What is it that Trump is trying to hide exactly? Are you saying that if we a a liberal president in office you would feel the same way? Somehow I doubt you would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
