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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

There is nothing in tax returns that a voter needs to know. Taxes for wealthy people undergo stringent examination by the IRS. Should we also know what kind of condoms he uses too?

 

[pknopp]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

Personally, I'm entirely in-favor of forcing Trump to serve-up his tax returns under Congressional subpoena...

However, I am NOT in favor of forcing Trump to do the same, merely to get on the ballot of a given State...

It would force anyone running to do it; not just Trump.

I would think if it was this important it would be as important in the Senate races.

 

[Kondor3]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

Personally, I'm entirely in-favor of forcing Trump to serve-up his tax returns under Congressional subpoena...

However, I am NOT in favor of forcing Trump to do the same, merely to get on the ballot of a given State...

It would force anyone running to do it; not just Trump.

But Trump would be test case and only a complete fool would believe that it was not politically motivated against Trump.

Time to smack-down that State law in Federal court.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

You mean like we were when Harry Weed said he had a personal friend that knew Mitt Romney paid nothing in taxes? Turns out his personal friend was in his head.

 

[Kondor3]

...Taxes for wealthy people undergo stringent examination by the IRS....

But they are only looking for compliance with the tax code, not whether an elected official has a financial interest in accommodating foreign powers.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. there is no right to privacy in a Public office.

If you say so.

it is a public office not a private office.

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

based on what? it is not a private office.

I've stated why not more than once.

There is no right to privacy in a public office.

 

[22lcidw]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

I don't believe they would care. I know I don't. I only care if he does not keep his views he spouted.

 

[pknopp]

If you say so.

it is a public office not a private office.

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

based on what? it is not a private office.

I've stated why not more than once.

There is no right to privacy in a public office.

Yes there is. Can they make you release your health records?

 

[pknopp]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

I don't believe they would care. I know I don't. I only care if he does not keep his views he spouted.

Like making Mexico pay for the wall? Like releasing his great health care program like he promised? .......like releasing his tax returns like he promised?

 

[danielpalos]

it is a public office not a private office.

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

based on what? it is not a private office.

I've stated why not more than once.

There is no right to privacy in a public office.

Yes there is. Can they make you release your health records?

it has to be relevant. "taxes and the money trail" is relevant.

 

[pknopp]

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

based on what? it is not a private office.

I've stated why not more than once.

There is no right to privacy in a public office.

Yes there is. Can they make you release your health records?

it has to be relevant. "taxes and the money trail" is relevant.

You said running for public office negated your right to privacy. It either does or it doesn't. (it doesn't)

 

[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

I agree. Whether a candidate was already barred from the ballot would not affect whether a voter has standing. Though it might affect whether the case was ripe. The issue of standing is based on whether voters themselves have a grievance that is within the court's purview to be solved. And I just don't see it here.

That's because you're an idiot. Of course they have a grievance. They can't vote for the candidate of their choice. How fucking thick do you have to be not to see that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...Taxes for wealthy people undergo stringent examination by the IRS....

But they are only looking for compliance with the tax code, not whether an elected official has a financial interest in accommodating foreign powers.

You mean like Joe Biden?

As long as he's not making deals with foreign interests while President, it doesn't really matter. Americans are allowed to do business dealings in their private lives prior to taking elected office.

When a Democrat asks you why there should be no new gun laws, this is exactly why. Because Democrats cannot be trusted with laws. They've proven themselves not trustworthy multiple times. They will turn them upside down to serve their own personal or political interest.

 

[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

I agree. Whether a candidate was already barred from the ballot would not affect whether a voter has standing. Though it might affect whether the case was ripe. The issue of standing is based on whether voters themselves have a grievance that is within the court's purview to be solved. And I just don't see it here.

That's because you're an idiot. Of course they have a grievance. They can't vote for the candidate of their choice. How fucking thick do you have to be not to see that?

Why is it so hard for people (you) to disagree with someone without the lame insults?

 

[danielpalos]

based on what? it is not a private office.

I've stated why not more than once.

There is no right to privacy in a public office.

Yes there is. Can they make you release your health records?

it has to be relevant. "taxes and the money trail" is relevant.

You said running for public office negated your right to privacy. It either does or it doesn't. (it doesn't)

can you explain how a right to privacy would arise in a public office?

 

[danielpalos]

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

I agree. Whether a candidate was already barred from the ballot would not affect whether a voter has standing. Though it might affect whether the case was ripe. The issue of standing is based on whether voters themselves have a grievance that is within the court's purview to be solved. And I just don't see it here.

That's because you're an idiot. Of course they have a grievance. They can't vote for the candidate of their choice. How fucking thick do you have to be not to see that?

Why is it so hard for people (you) to disagree with someone without the lame insults?

they are right wingers. that is their excuse Because, in right wing fantasy, they are Always right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.
Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

What a dumbass turd. People file lawsuits all the time against laws because they know they will be harmed. You're lame-assed theory that the harm has to occur before the suit is filed is based on your stupidity and ignorance of the law.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

These Trump haters sure are stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

This has been explained to you leftists over and over, and you act like it's never been explained before.