Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns
Source: The Hill
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 09/19/19 04:41 PM EDT
A federal judge issued a temporary injunction against a California state law that requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to appear on the primary ballot.
President Trump's lawyers had challenged the law, which was signed into law by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr., a George W. Bush appointee on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, said there would be "irreparable harm without temporary relief" for Trump and other candidates if he did not make the rare temporary decision to block, The Los Angeles Times reported.
The decision will likely be appealed by state officials.
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462234-federal-judge-blocks-california-law-requiring-trump-tax-returns
(Short article, no more at link.)
thegoose
(3,115 posts)This is the Fourth Fucking Reich.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Just as bad though.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!
sandensea
(21,639 posts)You'll recall that Bush was a big believer in the RW takeover of the judiciary.
Worked so well for him, after all.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!
sandensea
(21,639 posts)I mean - how much treason are they going to sit by and stand for, for God's sake!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!
bluestarone
(16,976 posts)WTF! totally WRONG! in my eyes.
msongs
(67,420 posts)bluestarone
(16,976 posts)That's what i'm thinking!
onenote
(42,714 posts)I think the disclosure requirement for getting on the primary ballot should be upheld. But I also don't think states have completely unfettered discretion in deciding how to run primary elections. For example, a state can limit voting in a primary to registered members of a particular political party, even if that effectively disenfranchises voters that do not register with any party. But could they say that only left handed people can vote? Only people over a certain age? Only people who voted in the last general election? Could a state impose, in effect, a poll tax to participate in a primary?
Again...states can do a lot of things, but I don't think they necessarily can do anything that they want. And that goes for ballot access issues. Could a state declare that only a left handed person can qualify for ballot access? Or only someone with a net worth of $10 million dollars? There has to be some standard...I don't know what it is, but there has to be something.
bluestarone
(16,976 posts)I'm thinking HOW can courts pick and choose what rights States actually do have?
former9thward
(32,025 posts)I predicted this when the law was passed and people said I was wrong, Well ...
Response to onenote (Reply #14)
still_one This message was self-deleted by its author.
LiberalFighter
(50,950 posts)Primaries are a different animal.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)It is not in my copy.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)They are to select which members of a party get to run as the party rep.
Nothing federal about it.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Of course it is federal.
lostnfound
(16,184 posts)former9thward
(32,025 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,076 posts)A party could, without legal consequences, go back to the "smoke filled room" method.
In many states, state law would have to be changed. Like our state, there are statutes regarding primaries. But, the fed cannot stop a state from returning to power brokers from picking a candidate
former9thward
(32,025 posts)And why should a major party be forced to go to the "smoke filled room" just to avoid something that is unconstitutional? I predicted this would be the result when the law was passed.
a kennedy
(29,673 posts)Who is going to stand up to this piece of shit???
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)The constitution sets the requirements for office, not the states. But states make requirements for ballot access (signature requirements, etc)-if this is a ballot access issue the states win, but if it is a qualification for office issue, the president wins.
LiberalFighter
(50,950 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)And say the preside t qualifications are being chaanged. California will likely argur that isnt the case and it is a ballot access issue....
cstanleytech
(26,295 posts)electoral college can only vote for a candidate that has released their tax returns to the public 90 days or sooner before an election?
onenote
(42,714 posts)cstanleytech
(26,295 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)And states can't do that.
cstanleytech
(26,295 posts)electors vote for?
onenote
(42,714 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Polybius
(15,437 posts)A law was just struck down a few months ago that said electors must vote for their Party's winner or be fined.
Olafjoy
(937 posts)The 5th largest economy in the world should take a lesson from Cheetolinis people and say Injunction smishsmunction. No taxes no ballot. What is he going to do? Send the army to the printers?
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Than the Republicans. This shit is getting tiresome.
bluestarone
(16,976 posts)I believe it to be JUDGES are the problem!
riversedge
(70,242 posts)Link to tweet
?s=20
Judge To Rule Against California Election Law Requiring Trumps Tax Returns
President Donald Trump speaks about his administration's national security strategy at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center on December 18, 2017. President Donald Trump rolled out his first "Nati... MORE
By Cristina Cabrera
|
September 19, 2019 6:48 pm
A federal judge said on Thursday that he will order a temporary injunction against Californias law requiring presidential candidates to provide their tax returns in order to appear on the states ballot.
According to the Los Angeles Times, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. said the law would cause candidates, including President Donald Trump, irreparable harm without temporary relief.
The decision was a victory for Trump, his campaign and the California Republican party, all of whom had sued against the law.
We are encouraged that the federal court tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted, said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow, per Politico. We look forward to the courts written order.
California passed the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act near the end of July in an effort to force Trump to disclose his long-concealed tax returns.
Trumps legal team quickly slammed the law as unconstitutional and moved to block it.
sakabatou
(42,158 posts)I wonder how it will play out.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)ScratchCat
(1,990 posts)and argue that your tax records show no wrongdoing at the same time. What is the harm? How can the motherfucking POTUS be "harmed" by the citizens of the country knowing where his money is coming from unless he has committed fraud?