Supreme Court halts turnover of Trump tax returns

[Hank77]

they do so all the time by finding a law unconstitutional or ordering a specified corrective action (think busing).

Yes, they can find a law unconstitutional. That isn't the same as writing a law.
SCOTUS determined the segregation was unconstitutional and therefore, busing was a form of desegregation in public schools.

This law is legislative so I don't know how they will deal with that. If it wasn't unconstitutional in 1924 is it unconstitutional today? I don't know that it's ever been challenged.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You could compete for those electoral votes. You just have to do it as a write in candidate. Lisa Murkowski got her senate seat by winning as a write in in Alaska.

Winning an election in Alaska is like winning an election in Kent County Michigan.

 

[Hank77]

You could compete for those electoral votes. You just have to do it as a write in candidate. Lisa Murkowski got her senate seat by winning as a write in in Alaska.

That's interesting, I didn't know that was how she won. I've written in candidates before.

 

[JohnAshton]

This SCOTUS, following Roberts thinking, tries to honor legislative intent whenever possible.

I think the Court will eventually let the law stand.

 

[Sparagmos]

Roberts hit the nail on the head.......

Regarding what? Are you attributing Trump’s lawyer’s words to the Supreme Court?!

 

[civilwarbuff]

They aren't attempting to. But the states have unilateral constitutional authority to decide the qualifications for appearing on the ballot.

And your belief in that is supported by what evidence?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Each state has their own election laws. It's too late for Michael Bloomberg to get on the ballot in some states. If you're not on the ballot then you just can't compete for those electoral votes.

As above....your belief in that is supported by what evidence?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So you would have let Capone walk? For shame.

I said WEAPON not justice....words have meanings......

 

[civilwarbuff]

I think the Court will eventually let the law stand.

Not when the court looks at the intent of the law.....darn that 'equal protection under the law'......

 

[JohnAshton]

I said WEAPON not justice....words have meanings......

Yes, they do, and your implied meaning failed.

And, yes, the law will stand.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot - CNNPolitics

"US District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. of the Eastern District of California on Tuesday wrote "while this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California" to pass the law, "the Act's provisions likely violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States." England noted that it is not the court's role "to decide whether a tax return disclosure requirement is good policy or makes political sense.""

 

[JohnAshton]

That is a good ruling.

The Court will support a federal subpoena of the tax records.

 

[Speedwell]

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot - CNNPolitics

"US District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. of the Eastern District of California on Tuesday wrote "while this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California" to pass the law, "the Act's provisions likely violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States." England noted that it is not the court's role "to decide whether a tax return disclosure requirement is good policy or makes political sense.""

All those conservative judicial appointments are starting to pay off. But this is just practice. When Trump gets to replace Ginsberg the full-scale judicial attack on the First Amendment can begin.

 

[JohnAshton]

The Dems will stack the court and eviscerate the EC.

The GOP will then move to the center or die as a political organization.

 

[Hank77]

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot - CNNPolitics

"US District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. of the Eastern District of California on Tuesday wrote "while this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California" to pass the law, "the Act's provisions likely violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States." England noted that it is not the court's role "to decide whether a tax return disclosure requirement is good policy or makes political sense.""

It doesn't surprise me that this particular law is being challenged. The judge said that it, "likely" violates the Constitution. We'll see how CA responds.

 

[JohnAshton]

I agree with the Judge, Hankk77, but the federal and state DA requests are well within the law.

 

[Hank77]

That is a good ruling.

The Court will support a federal subpoena of the tax records.

Hey, John, it's hard to follow who you are responding to. Would you consider using the reply feature?

 

[JohnAshton]

When I respond that way, I am responding generally not particularly, Hank77.

 

[Speedwell]

And your belief in that is supported by what evidence?

US Constitution Article II, Section 1 gives each state complete freedom in the manner of choosing Electors.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is a good ruling.

The Court will support a federal subpoena of the tax records.

The court will because a subpoena requires a reasonable suspicion not just 'cuz we don't like him'......