HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Federal judge blocks Cali...

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:10 PM

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.)

41 replies, 2891 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns (Original post)
Judi Lynn Sep 19 OP
thegoose Sep 19 #1
InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 20 #31
sandensea Sep 20 #32
InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 20 #34
sandensea Sep 20 #35
InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 20 #36
bluestarone Sep 19 #2
msongs Sep 19 #4
bluestarone Sep 19 #6
onenote Sep 19 #14
bluestarone Sep 19 #17
former9thward Sep 19 #25
still_one Sep 19 #20
LiberalFighter Sep 19 #7
former9thward Sep 19 #26
dumbcat Sep 19 #9
former9thward Sep 19 #27
lostnfound Sep 20 #37
former9thward Sep 20 #39
ProfessorGAC Sep 20 #38
former9thward Sep 20 #40
a kennedy Sep 19 #3
Tiggeroshii Sep 19 #5
LiberalFighter Sep 19 #8
onenote Sep 19 #15
Tiggeroshii Sep 19 #19
cstanleytech Sep 19 #10
onenote Sep 19 #11
cstanleytech Sep 19 #16
onenote Sep 19 #18
cstanleytech Sep 19 #22
onenote Sep 19 #23
PoliticAverse Sep 19 #28
Polybius Sep 19 #29
Olafjoy Sep 19 #12
BlueIdaho Sep 19 #13
bluestarone Sep 19 #21
riversedge Sep 19 #24
sakabatou Sep 19 #30
PoliticAverse Sep 20 #33
ScratchCat Sep 20 #41

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:13 PM

1. The Pukes are all in lockstep

This is the Fourth Fucking Reich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thegoose (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 12:17 AM

31. Seriously... WTF!?! Surprised the judge wasn't appointed by that ass-clown!!

Just as bad though.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #31)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 12:26 AM

32. One of Dubya's toadies

You'll recall that Bush was a big believer in the RW takeover of the judiciary.

Worked so well for him, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandensea (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 01:33 AM

34. As they say, elections have consequences... we need to fight fire with fire.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 01:41 AM

35. I wish the good people in the intelligence agencies would see it that way.

I mean - how much treason are they going to sit by and stand for, for God's sake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandensea (Reply #35)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 02:32 AM

36. Good question!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:14 PM

2. I thought state elections are state elections?

WTF! totally WRONG! in my eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:19 PM

4. the office is federal not state nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:23 PM

6. Right BUT States decide HOW to run their own elections.

That's what i'm thinking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:16 PM

14. Could a state declare that only voters over the age of 50 can vote in a primary?

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:48 PM

17. SC said Feds can't interfer with gerrymandering

I'm thinking HOW can courts pick and choose what rights States actually do have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 10:37 PM

25. It is called the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

I predicted this when the law was passed and people said I was wrong, Well ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #14)


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:24 PM

7. But the Constitutional requirement only applies to the general.

Primaries are a different animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 10:38 PM

26. Where does it say that in the Constitution?

It is not in my copy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:33 PM

9. The primaries are not to elect someone to office

They are to select which members of a party get to run as the party rep.

Nothing federal about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 10:39 PM

27. You can't get to the general without the primaries.

Of course it is federal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #27)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 05:18 AM

37. Yes you can. How do third party candidates get there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #37)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 09:07 AM

39. This law was aimed at the major parties not independents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #27)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 07:07 AM

38. Inaccurate

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 09:10 AM

40. Has CA changed it law about primaries?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:16 PM

3. GAWD DAMN IT........

Who is going to stand up to this piece of shit???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:21 PM

5. Either way they rule on this will not be controversial

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:25 PM

8. Yep! No different than requirement with petition signatures to get on ballot in primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:19 PM

15. what would be the argument against a rule that limited ballot access to billionaires?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 07:54 PM

19. My guess is they will try toavoid that approach altogether

And say the preside t qualifications are being chaanged. California will likely argur that isnt the case and it is a ballot access issue....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:57 PM

10. What about a law that says that the state electors for the

electoral college can only vote for a candidate that has released their tax returns to the public 90 days or sooner before an election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:11 PM

11. That would be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:31 PM

16. Why isn't it unconstitutional for other states to mandate who the electors can vote for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 07:46 PM

18. In your example, the state would be imposing a qualification for holding federal office.

And states can't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 08:20 PM

22. But isnt that what some of the states are doing already by enacting requirements on who the

electors vote for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 08:55 PM

23. no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 10:58 PM

28. Problably yes, which is why laws concerning "faithless electors" are most likely unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 11:01 PM

29. It is

A law was just struck down a few months ago that said electors must vote for their Party's winner or be fined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:14 PM

12. California

The 5th largest economy in the world should take a lesson from Cheetolini’s people and say “Injunction smishsmunction. No taxes no ballot.” What is he going to do? Send the army to the printers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 06:15 PM

13. Please tell me Democrats have better lawyers

Than the Republicans. This shit is getting tiresome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIdaho (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 07:57 PM

21. I don't think Lawyers are the problem

I believe it to be JUDGES are the problem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 09:20 PM

24. Trumps smug ugly face makes me sick..................





?s=20




Judge To Rule Against California Election Law Requiring Trump’s 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 California’s law requiring presidential candidates to provide their tax returns in order to appear on the state’s 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 court’s 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.

Trump’s legal team quickly slammed the law as unconstitutional and moved to block it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 11:33 PM

30. "The decision will likely be appealed by state officials."

I wonder how it will play out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sakabatou (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 01:00 AM

33. U.S. Term_Limits Inc. v. Thornton suggests the law will not be upheld...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 10:58 AM

41. You can't argue "irreputable harm"

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread