Updated: Jul 11, 2020
This is the First in an Occasional Series Called SCOTUS Over Drinks at CVK.
My favorite bar in Oakland is Cafe Van Kleef. For those of you unfamiliar, it's iconic and historically significant. It is the first place in the country that ever put up an "I am Oscar Grant" sign. You should go there. You might hear me talk about a SCOTUS case. We can have a bluehound together.
Trump v. Vance Over Drinks.
“Same legal standard as anyone else, except that the President can also object on some position specific grounds (implicates national security, retaliation for policy position, etc.) but no heightened standard!"
First Federal court said, "No jurisdiction. State Court. Not my Circus, Not my Monkeys. Go Fuck Yourself!" Appeals to Circuit Court. Circuit court says. "Dude, yeah, I get it, you're the President, but there's still a standard behavior and you don't get any protection, Yo!"
Hey's like "Supremes, Wassahp!" They hear it and issue three opinions 5 judges say, "Same legal standard as anyone else, except that the President can also object on some position specific grounds (implicates national security, retaliation for policy position, etc.) but no heightened standard."
Two justice (which is what SCOTUS Judges are called because they're hella bad-ass) concurrence: Those two all, "So the majority is wrong in that the standard should be a little different, you should consider some of the President's concerns, but it doesn't matter, because those would still be considerations THE COURT should consider at the lower level not reasons to just toss the subpoena and say, 'boom, out, later dudes!'"
Last two Justices, Alito, and the tenant who lives up his ass, Thomas, (who does sometimes disagree with Alito if a case involves racism because Thomas is Black) they're like, "The same heightened standard that applies to federal subpoenas applies to state ones and even though we didn't apply it to Clinton in a Civil suit, we're applying it to Trump in a criminal one because we're Republicans. This is a travesty, I never!"
But the new precedent (which is just a term for law established by taking a case to court to change law instead of taking it before legislators, and before you say "judicial activism," rights you got that way include the right not to have local police beat confessions out of you--I'm not making this up) is that the President, when subpoenaed by a state prosecutor is held to the same standard as anyone else, save that he has some additional grounds for objection to the subpoena.
The subpoenas will move forward, although Trump will have the right to object to them, which will likely lead him refusing to cough up the information until a court order is issued and then another appeal on the court order which will not go to the Supreme Court, because that will be a matter of fact not law. He will probably drag this shit out as long as he can because you-know, prison sucks. And he's definitely committed felonies, and wants to avoid being convicted for them. The goal is to withhold evidence as long as possible