California justices skeptical of law requiring Trump to release tax returns for primary

  
Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  5 days ago  •  40 comments

By:   Maura Dolan

California justices skeptical of law requiring Trump to release tax returns for primary
California’s top court appeared skeptical Wednesday that the Legislature may require presidential primary candidates to disclose not only their tax returns but also their birth certificates and psychiatric records.

So, instead of voter suppression, we have Democrats suppressing the choices that voters have. WTH?


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


During a hearing on a new law requiring presidential primary candidates to produce their tax records, a lawyer representing the state argued the Legislature had the power to impose all sorts of requirements. Though some justices appeared inclined to find some support for the new law, no one on the court embraced the notion that the Legislature had unfettered power.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Jay C. Russell, defending the law, spoke of its expansiveness in response to a question from Justice Joshua Groban.
“Would the Legislature be entitled to impose requirements that candidates produce birth certificate or psychotherapy records or affidavits that they have never committed adultery or been a member of the Communist Party?” Groban asked.

Russell said yes, under the text of a state law, “the Legislature does have plenary power to regulate primary elections.”
He noted, though, that some requirements could run afoul of privacy protections embodied in the state and federal constitutions.
“The Legislature can then tack on any number of additional requirements?” asked an incredulous Justice Ming W. Chin.
“Where does it end?” Chin asked. “Do we get all their high school report cards?”

Even justices whose questions suggested an openness to the tax returns requirement indicated there had to be some limits.
Justice Goodwin Liu told Russell that he seemed to be espousing “a very strange reading” of the law.
Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar suggested that a less expansive reading of the law might have been “enough to win your case.”
In the case before the court, the California Republican Party argued the law violated the California Constitution, which since 1972 has called for an open presidential primary.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the Legislature had not even considered the state Constitution in drafting the law.
The Legislature has plenary power “until the Constitution speaks,” she said. She said the court searched the records to determine if the Legislature even consulted the state Constitution.
“We didn’t find anything,” she said. “Did you?”
Even if the state high court upheld the law, it could not be enforced under an order by Sacramento-based U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr.

England ruled in September that the law violated four different sections of the U.S. Constitution in addition to a separate federal law. The state appealed his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is not likely to decide the case before the deadline for producing tax returns.
Federal courts have the last word on matters of federal law, and the California Supreme Court has the final say on state law issues. If either court blocks the law, it cannot take effect.
In a separate case, a federal appeals court in New York decided earlier this week that Trump’s accountants must turn over his tax returns to a grand jury investigating possible illegal conduct by the president. The Trump administration has said it would appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    5 days ago

And the double standard rolls on. You WILL suppress voters if you suppress candidates.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    5 days ago
And the double standard rolls on.

Are you saying that this law only effects GOP candidates? 

You WILL suppress voters if you suppress candidates.

So does that mean that you oppose the GOP cancelling primaries? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1    5 days ago
So does that mean that you oppose the GOP cancelling primaries? 

The GOP gets to decide what it wants, not you.

I recall you not having a problem with Hillary basically buying the DNC.

So why upset now?

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    5 days ago
I recall you not having a problem with Hillary basically buying the DNC.

Who did she pay? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.3  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @1.1    5 days ago
Are you saying that this law only effects GOP candidates? 

No. It doesn't matter the party. Suppression of available candidates for voters to choose from is equal to suppression OF their votes.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    5 days ago

Ignoring. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    5 days ago

So where does the double standard you spoke of come in? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.2    5 days ago

Do at least try to keep up.

She settled the DNC's debt. I am guessing that means she paid the creditors.

or is the former chair of the DNC a liar?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    5 days ago

Ignoring facts and history??

Typical.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.8  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @1.1.5    5 days ago

Jesus H Christ. The left is continually harping on the fact that voter ID is suppression because, evidently, their constituents are too stupid to figure out how to get one. Therefore, crying suppression. and now the state can decide who they can and cannot vote for? FFS.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    4 days ago

Ignoring. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.10  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @1.1    4 days ago

We got the Presidential primary separate from the rest of the jungle primary system and where one has to be a Republican to vote in the presidential republican primary.  We forced the state to do that by threatening to take the party out of the primary system and have a caucus instead. If the state prevails in court, a GOP caucus instead of primary could happen.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.10    3 days ago
We forced the state to do that by threatening to take the party out of the primary system and have a caucus instead.

Utter bullshit Xx. Why lie? Parties control how they run their primaries and WHO may participate. Stop trying to pretend that CA somehow challenged the GOP rules for how they run their primaries. 

Oh and BTFW, when you are talking about Republican voters, since you voted 3rd party, WHY do you say 'we'? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.12  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    3 days ago

I have voted Republican in every election I voted in since 1978.  Except in 2016 for President.  That year I voted for an establishment Republican running as an independent.  The last time I will ever vote for an establishment Republican.  It will be either a tea party like populist libertarian/ Conservative party base Republican or 3rd party from now on.  Trump has my vote for 2020.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.13  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    3 days ago

Of course parties control how they run their Presidential Primaries. The state tried to compel open primaries a few years ago and the GOP said that they would eliminate the state primary for President and go with a caucus instead if the state passed that law.  When the proposition was written that passed to create our current jungle primary it was written to let the parties make their own presidential primary rules to avoid the GOP going to a caucus.  Now democrats and decline to state voters can vote in the democrat presidential primary and only Republicans can vote in the Republican Presidential Primary.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.13    3 days ago
the GOP said that they would eliminate the state primary for President and go with a caucus instead if the state passed that law.
When the proposition was written that passed to create our current jungle primary it was written to let the parties make their own presidential primary rules to avoid the GOP going to a caucus.

Prove it Xx. Post a link. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    3 days ago

Yes, we established that already--facts and history.

Well done.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    3 days ago

Texan is on my view but ignore list.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.16    2 days ago

jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    2 days ago

Texan is on my view but ignore list.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.1.19  arkpdx  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    2 days ago

You lucky dog!

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1    yesterday

"Presidents aren’t required by law to release their tax returns."

Since The " Most Important Democrat in Democrat world "..... LOST .....in 2016....the Democrats are going to try and do anything they can to make sure the "No-Law" is adhered too. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.18    yesterday
Texan is on my view but ignore list.

So ….. you're not really Ignoring "Texan".

Good job ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.21    yesterday

Isn't it interesting that someone felt compelled to tell us all who he ignores!

Living in his head--rent free!

Lmfao!

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.23  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.22    yesterday
Isn't it interesting that someone felt compelled to tell us all who he ignores!

No kidding....but apparently.....not really ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

You're still being …… VIEWED ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    5 days ago
You WILL suppress voters if you suppress candidates.

Wait, didn't you just post a comment about the KY. governor race and saying the legislature being able to over turn the race and keep Bevin in office? How is that not voter suppression? Bevin lost. But just ignore the will of the voters? 

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/48592/trump-backed-candidate-for-kentucky-governor-has-lost#cm1196244

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @1.2    5 days ago
Wait, didn't you just post a comment about the KY. governor race and saying the legislature being able to over turn the race and keep Bevin in office?

Only in your mind. If you bothered to read, there could even be ano0ther vote if the "victory" didn't meet certain Constitutional requirements. I really don't have a dog in that hunt and I was just stating fact. You know. Trying to put some air freshener on the constant barrage of "BUT TRUMP" stinky articles.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    5 days ago

Democrats  reaching back to their roots, similar to how they kept Lincoln off the ballot in the south

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    5 days ago
Democrats  reaching back to their roots, similar to how they kept Lincoln off the ballot in the south

It's not similar in any way.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    5 days ago

States rights. That thingy the right always supports as long as it fits their agenda. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @3    5 days ago

This has national implications. As in 2016, the party, in the end, will nominate whom they want to and this piece of bias BS has no bearing on that. It's aimed purely at the GOP and Mr. Trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1    5 days ago

Sheesh Jim, you act like they are using extortion of a foreign country to dig up dirt on trump. 

Again, states rights, they can pass laws as they see fit. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    5 days ago
It's aimed purely at the GOP and Mr. Trump.

What don't you understand? And I guess yes they can. No matter how stupid. And without Trump, there may not even need to be a primary on the GOP side. Perhaps they should have a referendum and put that piece of "legislation" to a vote prior to.

And I am sure you realize there could be some uncovered consequences to Dem candidates as well. The troop of Representatives and Senators in California are  NOT squeaky clean either. Why is it that liberals and democrats NEVER EVER remember that decisions have unintended circumstances? I think you know why. It's all about feelings over intellect..............every damned time.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    5 days ago
Again, states rights, they can pass laws as they see fit. 

State laws can be struck down.

They have and WILL be struck down.

Figured Democrats would have learned that by now after their Jim Crow laws were struck down.

 
 
 
arkpdx
3.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    3 days ago

"Again, states rights, they can pass laws as they see fit. "

Ah! So you supported the Arizona laws conserving immigration inforcement or do you only think that for certain laws only?   

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    5 days ago
the Legislature had not even considered the state Constitution in drafting the law

There's a big surprise. 

I find it amazing that with all the talk of "abuse of power" in the news - and especially from self-righteous Democratic legislators - no one sees the irony in legislation like this.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @4    5 days ago
and especially from self-righteous Democratic legislators - no one sees the irony in legislation like this.

Especially in a state where both Shifty Schiff and Pelosi are from, two of the biggest " Trump abused his power" squawkers.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    4 days ago
California’s top court appeared skeptical Wednesday that the Legislature may require presidential primary candidates to disclose not only their tax returns but also their birth certificates and psychiatric records.

LOL  skeptical for good reason.

states do not get to add extra requirements to run for president

seriously, no chance this bs sticks... no chance what so ever

but it is funny they even try, thanks for the laugh :)

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6  Paula Bartholomew    yesterday

Let Trump put his name on it.  It's not like he will carry CA anyway despite some of his Trumper Hollywood lemmings.

 
 
 
katrix
6.1  katrix  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    yesterday
It's not like he will carry CA anyway despite some of his Trumper Hollywood lemmings.

The vindictive prick hates California because it bruised his ego that they didn't pick him for president - and that they never gave him any awards for his crappy reality show. Which is why he's tried to deny aid for the fire-ravaged parts of the state - one more thing that show how unfit he is for the office of president. He's so ignorant that he doesn't even understand how fire management is done, or what percent of CA is managed by the Federal gov't versus state, and such; but you bruise his ego and he'll try to destroy you. He hates America for the most part; unless you voted for him, you don't count.

And he changed his legal residence to FL because he's so upset about how NY "treats him very unfairly." I swear, the man should just wear a giant snowflake outfit all the time, because he's the whiniest little baby I've ever seen.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Kavika
CB
Tacos!
Dean Moriarty
gooseisgone
bugsy
loki12
JohnRussell
Dulay


44 visitors