Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 420 Times in 273 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns

    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 and the Republican National Committee had challenged the law.

    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 law, The Los Angeles Times reported.

    The California law, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), requires candidates for president or governor to provide five years of federal tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot.

    The judge's decision came after a hearing on Thursday in Sacramento on consolidated arguments made in five lawsuits over the California law. During the hearing, England focused on the issue of whether a federal financial disclosure law preempts states from imposing additional rules, the Times reported.

    A lawyer for California argued that different states already have different rules for their primary elections, while a lawyer for Trump argued that the U.S. Constitution established rules for running for president that states cannot alter, according to the Times.

    Trump attorney Jay Sekulow praised the judge's decision.

    ďWe are encouraged that the federal court has tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted. We look forward to the courtís written order," he said in a statement. "It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violated citizensí 1st Amendment right of association."

    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mp-tax-returns

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to ziggy For This Post:

    Stretch (09-19-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    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 and the Republican National Committee had challenged the law.

    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 law, The Los Angeles Times reported.

    The California law, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), requires candidates for president or governor to provide five years of federal tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot.

    The judge's decision came after a hearing on Thursday in Sacramento on consolidated arguments made in five lawsuits over the California law. During the hearing, England focused on the issue of whether a federal financial disclosure law preempts states from imposing additional rules, the Times reported.

    A lawyer for California argued that different states already have different rules for their primary elections, while a lawyer for Trump argued that the U.S. Constitution established rules for running for president that states cannot alter, according to the Times.

    Trump attorney Jay Sekulow praised the judge's decision.

    “We are encouraged that the federal court has tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted. We look forward to the court’s written order," he said in a statement. "It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violated citizens’ 1st Amendment right of association."

    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mp-tax-returns
    No surprise. This won't pass muster. Another leftist FAIL. There's so many it is hard to even keep count anymore.
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Truth Detector For This Post:

    Stretch (09-19-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    120,143
    Thanks
    33,403
    Thanked 19,380 Times in 15,084 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 15,834 Times in 14,674 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    why is he soooooo invested in not telling the people what he makes and pays?



    they are coming out no matter what he does


    go see NY courts

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    9,974
    Thanks
    1,056
    Thanked 2,956 Times in 2,314 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 242 Times in 229 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    they are coming out no matter what he does
    Wanna bet ?
    Just because you don't understand it does not make it bad. Celticguy

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Celticguy For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-19-2019)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    15,928
    Thanks
    2,369
    Thanked 8,640 Times in 5,514 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,157 Times in 1,944 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    why is he soooooo invested in not telling the people what he makes and pays?



    they are coming out no matter what he does


    go see NY courts
    right wing goobs love Trump's lawlessness, admire the trait

    oh well, a GWB appointee rules as expected...…...appeals court here we come

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    why is he soooooo invested in not telling the people what he makes and pays?
    Because it is NONE of your fucking business lunatic. Because unless he is under some criminal investigation, which he is not, it is NONE of California's business either.

    The Constitution; read it.
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    right wing goobs love Trump's lawlessness, admire the trait
    Again, you keep making that lie filled claim and when challenged to prove what crimes Trump has committed, come up empty handed. Are you mentally retarded? You have to be to be this stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    oh well, a GWB appointee rules as expected...…...appeals court here we come
    You never get tired of looking like a moron and being wrong do you?
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    15,924
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 7,388 Times in 4,704 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,007 Times in 943 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    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 and the Republican National Committee had challenged the law.

    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 law, The Los Angeles Times reported.

    The California law, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), requires candidates for president or governor to provide five years of federal tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot.

    The judge's decision came after a hearing on Thursday in Sacramento on consolidated arguments made in five lawsuits over the California law. During the hearing, England focused on the issue of whether a federal financial disclosure law preempts states from imposing additional rules, the Times reported.

    A lawyer for California argued that different states already have different rules for their primary elections, while a lawyer for Trump argued that the U.S. Constitution established rules for running for president that states cannot alter, according to the Times.

    Trump attorney Jay Sekulow praised the judge's decision.

    “We are encouraged that the federal court has tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted. We look forward to the court’s written order," he said in a statement. "It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violated citizens’ 1st Amendment right of association."

    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mp-tax-returns
    Tell us again, why does Trump feel the need breaking precedent to make sure no one ever sees his income tax returns?

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Tell us again, why does Trump feel the need breaking precedent to make sure no one ever sees his income tax returns?
    The Constitution; read it.

    Tell us again why Trump must be compelled to do something he is not Constitutionally required to do?
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,262
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 585 Times in 444 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 28 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Good. Completely unconstitutional law and an invasion of privacy.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to OG Yurt For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-19-2019)

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,262
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 585 Times in 444 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 28 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Tell us again, why does Trump feel the need breaking precedent to make sure no one ever sees his income tax returns?
    Why do you hate privacy?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to OG Yurt For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-19-2019)

  17. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OG Yurt View Post
    Why do you hate privacy?
    He also hates facts, the truth, being honest....Arsecheese has a long list.
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,262
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 585 Times in 444 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 28 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    right wing goobs love Trump's lawlessness, admire the trait

    oh well, a GWB appointee rules as expected...…...appeals court here we come
    What lawlessness? Be specific.

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    2,252
    Thanks
    251
    Thanked 605 Times in 489 Posts
    Groans
    52
    Groaned 130 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OG Yurt View Post
    Good. Completely unconstitutional law and an invasion of privacy.
    Yurtski the Constitutional expert
    Margot

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    2,252
    Thanks
    251
    Thanked 605 Times in 489 Posts
    Groans
    52
    Groaned 130 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OG Yurt View Post
    Good. Completely unconstitutional law and an invasion of privacy.
    Yurtski the Constitutional expert
    Margot

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: 07-31-2019, 06:01 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-16-2019, 08:18 PM
  3. Black federal judge repeals law requiring proof of citizenship to vote!!!
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-23-2018, 09:49 AM
  4. Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines
    By Pappy Jones in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2017, 04:27 PM
  5. Obama-appointed Federal Judge blocks Trump deportations
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-29-2017, 05:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •