Donald Trump’s lawyers have now formally appealed a federal court ruling that refused to block a House subpoena of the president’s tax returns via his accounting firm, Mazars USA. The judge who will hear the appeal is Merrick Garland, who lost out on a SCOTUS seat in 2016:
A federal judge in D.C. declined to block a House subpoena to President Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his financial records. Today, Trump formally appealed the ruling to the D.C. Court of Appeals – where the chief judge is Merrick Garland, Obama's Supreme Court nominee https://t.co/Lwe4u7hm5J
— Katie Couric (@katiecouric) May 21, 2019
“Karma, folks” writes the HuffPost:
"Karma, folks." https://t.co/YEW5I7rNK3
— HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) May 21, 2019
Mazars may comply with the subpoena, however:
It’s unclear if an appeal will ever come to fruition though. If Mazars complies with the subpoena, the process is moot. There is a tantalizing chance though that the case ends up before Merrick Garland on appeal.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 21, 2019
And libs are pretty giddy over the prospect of Garland hearing the appeal:
"And that's not even the best part. The judge hearing Trump's appeal is… wait for it… Merrick Garland!!!" pic.twitter.com/G6VpKX0NU0
— KremlinonthePotomac (@jurassicpork59) May 21, 2019
Recommended
But “this is not the burn folks think it is”:
Merrick Garland has a long record of deference to executive power. This is not the burn folks think it is https://t.co/UFG0DfL29k
— ed (@edkrayewski) May 21, 2019
Are libs not familiar with Garland’s past rulings? It’s one of the reasons Dems didn’t push harder for him in 2016 because they assumed Hillary would win and they could get someone more liberal:
GOP may have "stolen" his seat, but there's little basis for believing that Merrick Garland would've sided against the Government in this Travel Ban case. Virtually every analysis of Garland's record showed he exhibited consistent deference to law enforcement and executive power
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 26, 2018
From The American Conservative in 2016:
“The guy is clearly in the pocket of the executive branch,” offered constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, a bit more bluntly. “He hasn’t written anything that suggests he has ever dissented from this inclination, from being entrenched with the executive on all issues of foreign policy.” To think one can separate post 9/11 domestic surveillance and counterterrorism from foreign policy, Fein added, “is ridiculous.”
Or maybe libs figured Garland would defer to Democrats once he was on SCOTUS?
Thinking that Trump's tax appeal being presided over by Merrick Garland is somehow karmic justice enforces the idea that people expected him to be a partisan SCOTUS justice.
— neontaster (@neontaster) May 21, 2019
We’ll soon see if this is the case:
If Merrick Garland is the disciplined, honorable judge that everyone says he is, then he will rule in accordance w the law, not some sort of political vendetta. What is wrong w everyone? https://t.co/OEUC1uGli0
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) May 21, 2019
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member