Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates to Submit Tax Returns

[Dan Stubbs]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

The harm would occur for anyone wanting to run for office.

 

[bripat9643]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Congress has no right to his tax returns, so your claim is patently false.

you do know Trump is suing Congress dont you ?

Yes. So?

He's also suing CA.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

but only Trump is suing.

Jesus fucking christ. Read the link. Read the quote you posted from the link. Trump isn't bringing this lawsuit, you god damned fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

but only Trump is suing.

Jesus fucking christ. Read the link. Read the quote you posted from the link. Trump isn't bringing this lawsuit, you god damned fucking moron.

Which fucking lawsuit are you talking about? There are two: one against Congress and one against the state of California.

You still haven't explained why the voters don't have standing. That's because you don't know. You're an idiot spewing your ignorant opinion. I'm sure all the lawyers at judicial watch know if a lawsuit has standing. They win lawsuits against the government almost weekly.

 

[Thinker101]

but only Trump is suing.

Jesus fucking christ. Read the link. Read the quote you posted from the link. Trump isn't bringing this lawsuit, you god damned fucking moron.

Your panties may be on a bit too tight.
Trump campaign, GOP sue California over 2020 election tax-return requirement

 

[bripat9643]

but only Trump is suing.

Jesus fucking christ. Read the link. Read the quote you posted from the link. Trump isn't bringing this lawsuit, you god damned fucking moron.

Your panties may be on a bit too tight.
Trump campaign, GOP sue California over 2020 election tax-return requirement

They're cutting off the circulation to his brain.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

but only Trump is suing.

Jesus fucking christ. Read the link. Read the quote you posted from the link. Trump isn't bringing this lawsuit, you god damned fucking moron.

Your panties may be on a bit too tight.
Trump campaign, GOP sue California over 2020 election tax-return requirement

That is an entirely separate lawsuit. Why is this so difficult for you morons to understand?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Which fucking lawsuit are you talking about?

The one in YOUR original post, you fucking moron. And in the link that you fucking posted, you moron. Why the fuck are you so confused about what you, yourself, have posted? Too many drugs while you were a toddler?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

so let me get this straight. without reading the whole article does this mean that judicial watch is suing the state of california for wanting their presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns when running for POTUS? that cant be right cause judicial watch has always looked out for the people,that is more in protecting these corrupt candidates is what it sounds like to me.

 

[pknopp]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

That does not seem right. Once the candidate is DQed it would likely be too late to go through the courts before the election

 

[pknopp]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

That does not seem right. Once the candidate is DQed it would likely be too late to go through the courts before the election

Odds are the courts would put the ban on hold while the suit proceeded. The suit could be filed before election day. As I noted earlier the GOP hasn't even officially picked a candidate.

As far as the courts are concerned the candidate might simply agree to the requirements.

I also noted I could be wrong but there does have to be actual harm before a court will take a case.

 

[bripat9643]

Which fucking lawsuit are you talking about?

The one in YOUR original post, you fucking moron. And in the link that you fucking posted, you moron. Why the fuck are you so confused about what you, yourself, have posted? Too many drugs while you were a toddler?

Where have you explained why the voters don't have standing? You're focusing on this idiocy because you know you're full of shit.

 

[RealDave]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

Wow, Trump must really be hiding a lot in those returns.

 

[bripat9643]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

That does not seem right. Once the candidate is DQed it would likely be too late to go through the courts before the election

Odds are the courts would put the ban on hold while the suit proceeded. The suit could be filed before election day. As I noted earlier the GOP hasn't even officially picked a candidate.

As far as the courts are concerned the candidate might simply agree to the requirements.

I also noted I could be wrong but there does have to be actual harm before a court will take a case.

The whole point of the suit is that the candidate does not agree to the requirements, and neither do many of the voters.

You've been saying the suit couldn't be filed until after the election, and now you're saying it can be filed before the election.

 

[bripat9643]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

Wrong. That courts stuck down Trump's immigration EOs before a single person was denied a visa.

 

[pknopp]

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

That does not seem right. Once the candidate is DQed it would likely be too late to go through the courts before the election

Odds are the courts would put the ban on hold while the suit proceeded. The suit could be filed before election day. As I noted earlier the GOP hasn't even officially picked a candidate.

As far as the courts are concerned the candidate might simply agree to the requirements.

I also noted I could be wrong but there does have to be actual harm before a court will take a case.

The whole point of the suit is that the candidate does not agree to the requirements, and neither do many of the voters.

You've been saying the suit couldn't be filed until after the election, and now you're saying it can be filed before the election.

There is no candidate yet.

 

[bripat9643]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

so let me get this straight. without reading the whole article does this mean that judicial watch is suing the state of california for wanting their presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns when running for POTUS? that cant be right cause judicial watch has always looked out for the people,that is more in protecting these corrupt candidates is what it sounds like to me.

We all know the point of this law is to make it more difficult for candidates like Trump who aren't professional politicians to run for office. Protecting the voters is the last thing the douchebags behind it had in mind.