The House Democrats’ quest to get their hands on President Donald Trump’s personal records is far from a fait accompli.
Weeks after the United States Supreme Court blocked congressional subpoenas for President Trump’s financial information, the high court refused to grant Democrats the chance to continue litigating the case on an expedited timeline, as the Washington Examiner reported.
Supreme Court says no
House Democrats have been trying to get Trump’s financial records, including his tax returns and documents from Mazars USA, Capital One, and Deutsche Bank for well over a year.
According to The Hill, the Dems were on a winning streak in the courts before the Supreme Court, in early July, slowed their momentum with a 7-2 ruling that rebuked lower courts for failing to respect separation of powers between Congress and the presidency.
“Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could ‘exert an imperious control’ over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, as CNBC reported.
The Democrats complained that their investigations into Trump are “urgent,” and they demanded that the case be returned to the appeals court before Aug. 3, the date on which the Supreme Court’s decision will take official effect. But on Monday, the court refused, with only Justice Sonia Sotomayor siding with the Democrats, according to Fox News.
“The applications for orders to issue the judgments forthwith, presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court, are denied,” the court said.
Dems chastened by justices
For once, the House Democrats have been chastened by the courts in their unscrupulous efforts to harass President Trump.
The Democrats have argued that the subpoenas have a legislative (and investigative) purpose, but the Supreme Court rejected the House’s broad assertion of its subpoena power, arguing that the records demands represent “not a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government” that demands scrupulous attention to Constitutional boundaries.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito went further, with Thomas arguing that subpoenas for private information are not justified by any legislative purpose (of which there clearly is none), while Alito chastened the Dems for being too general about the purpose they claim exists.
“Specifically, the House should provide a description of the type of legislation being considered, and while great specificity is not necessary, the description should be sufficient to permit a court to assess whether the particular records sought are of any special importance,” Alito wrote.
While the high court has agreed to expedite a case from prosecutors in New York, who are also seeking his financial information, it’s looking less likely that House Democrats will get what they’re looking for before Election Day on Nov. 3.