I was curious about how oral argument would flow through video link. Impressive that our Supreme Court has shown great leadership by adapting to the pandemic.
The only thing different is that Chief Justice Roberts had to play the role of traffic cop ... calling the names of each justice to ask his/her questions. [Normally, the justices just jump in as they please without the need for the Chief Justice to recognize them.]
Bravo to the Court for showing us how to move the ball forward.
Today's arguments dealt with whether Congress (House committees) can subpoena Trump's tax financial records (that existed before he took office) that belong to third parties. I did not listen to the second argument which dealt with the State of New York getting the same records as part of a state criminal investigation.
On the former, it will be a closer question than I anticipated. Precedent and history strongly favor Congress, particularly where no executive privilege exists. However, counsel for the House struggled when pressed to answer "What would ever be out of bounds for Congress to ask for?" essentially asking whether politics would allow the Senate or House to badger any sitting President for documents that existed before taking office. Breyer's exchange was the crux of the argument that may result in the Court bucking precedent. We will see.
I would have replied that the Court should presume that Congress acts in good faith, beholden to the electorate every two years, and that we ought not let cynicism be the measuring stick.
Anyway, worth listening to the argument if you have an hour.
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/19-715