Follow-up Letter

Well friends,

            First, I want to apologize for having rushed to the conclusion that the Supreme Court had abdicated its duty to decide whether the subpoenas issued by the U.S. Congress and the Manhattan District Attorney to third-parties for the President’s personal financial records are enforceable.  I was misled by the fact that at the time the Court’s calendar listed no further proceedings for the remainder of the month. Shortly after I had sent out my letter, the Court revised its calendar to show that further opinions would be issued on Wednesday; and on Wednesday, it again revised its calendar to indicate that it would also be issuing decisions today. 

               As you may have heard, today the Court decided both cases in a manner that will insure that the President’s personal financial information will remain out of public sight until at least after the November election and perhaps for a long time thereafter.  The documents subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney will go to a Manhattan Grand Jury where they will remain secret until they are introduced into evidence in any legal proceeding that the District Attorney may ultimately bring against the President or others. This might be limited to only a handful of the subpoenaed items and any such litigation would likely not get to trial for many months, if not years.

            As I had feared in my last letter, the Court chose to remand the case brought by the Congress for further exploration of the extent to which the documents being sought would enable it to fulfill one of its Constitutional duties.  Now the case will go back to the U.S. District Court and then start back up the ladder again to the Supreme Court. In short, it could be two or three years before Congress will get its hands on the documents it has subpoenaed.  The only consolation is that the next President who tries to stonewall a Congressional investigation may have a little (emphasis on little) more difficulty in doing so.

            This brings me back to the issue that has been weighing on my mind; namely, has the Supreme Court abandoned judicial objectivity for political partisanship.  This will be particularly important if the President loses his bid to be re-elected and tries to claim in the courts that he lost because of fraudulent mail ballots or some other spurious reason.  I would hate to again leave the future direction of the country in the hands of a Supreme Court fixated on continuing the Republican agenda of tax cuts, trickle-down economics, diminished protective regulations and social injustice.