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

[bripat9643]

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.

whether I want to know more about the scumbags you support isn't the issue. Whether you're entitled know everything there is to know about the candidate is the issue, and you clearly aren't entitled to that. Are you entitled to know what he does in bed? Of course not. So your mantra "not wanting to know more" is clearly a big pile of horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Playing dumb is one of their favorite tactics, and then they whine when people call them stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

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...

Congress has zero reason to subpoena his tax returns. It's not of their business like it's none of yours.

Nahhhhh... I'm all for shoving an enforceable Congressional demand down his throat... in Washington.

I just don't want the Fruitloops in Kalipornia doin' it and bypassing Congress.

Congress can't do it either.

 

[pknopp]

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?

That's what we have been discussing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Not at all.

When we introduced voter purging in our state, the Democrats found out and had a fit that we were going to take dead people off the voter rolls. They filed a suit and a court stopped it before the election. Afterwards, they won the suit, but that win was overturned by a higher court, and we now have voter purging.

 

[bripat9643]

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...

Any such subpoena violates the 4th Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

Doesn't matter... we're talking about Federally protected information that a particular State legislature is trying to prise loose merely for partisan gain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not just federally protected. It's Constitutionally protected.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Playing dumb is one of their favorite tactics, and then they whine when people call them stupid.

And they do it so well.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Of course there is, shit for brains.

 

[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.

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.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

 

[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.

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 hand is based on your stupidity and ignorance of the law.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

 

[bripat9643]

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.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

They do have to show harm, but that doesn't mean it must have already occurred.

 

[danielpalos]

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...

Any such subpoena violates the 4th Amendment.

Not for a public office. Impeachment only means removal from office "so that regular criminal justice can occur."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given.

Voluntarily....started under Nixon.

.

ok. then WHY did he decide to break that standard, that trend of doing such? Why did he think he was special, and should not follow the trend?

Sunshine, is a good thing, and not a bad thing, unless you are Trump, it seems?

Why even take his side on this....? I do not understand you guys when it comes to this....??

Speaking of standards, we always had the standard of using the requirements outlined in the US Constitution to become President without question.

Trump showing his tax returns doesn't do him any good. It may only do him harm which is why Democrats want it. It has nothing to do with him being President. Democrats are looking for ways to discredit him as if they haven't tried that enough already.

If you were walking down a street and approached by a man who said he was going to beat you and take your money, would you go find a stick for him to beat you with???

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Because Stormy is an idiot. He thinks he's making a point when all he's really doing is saying "nuh uhn!"

 

[my2¢]

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

So, you are saying that Federal Courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over an election to determine their federal electors?

Bush v. Gore should have been over immediately if that's true.

In Bush vs Gore the federal court ruled had Florida had violated equal protection clause of the constitution because counties were inconsistent in how they were making determinations on questionable ballots. Now if California applies its election laws consistently throughout the state I'm saying the only constitutional law that applies is that those 18 and older can not be disqualified from voting due to age.

 

[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.

Of course there is, shit for brains.

Not for a public office or it is a private office.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

People have sued for all kinds of things even though not harmed. You can file a monetary suit if you believed you were financially harmed by some law, but then you have to show what that harm or expense was.

But you don't have to be harmed to file a suit to stop a law from doing you harm in the future. Look at some of the Voter-ID cases. They implemented the law, but it was stopped BEFORE the vote took place because some judge found it unconstitutional. They recently stopped Trump from enforcing his new law that asylum seekers have to apply outside the US. Nobody was harmed by that law, but they stopped it anyway on the grounds it was not changed by Congress.

 

[bripat9643]

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

So, you are saying that Federal Courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over an election to determine their federal electors?

Bush v. Gore should have been over immediately if that's true.

In Bush vs Gore the federal court ruled had Florida had violated equal protection clause of the constitution because counties were inconsistent in how they were making determinations on questionable ballots. Now if California applies its election laws consistently throughout the state I'm saying the only constitutional law that applies is that those 18 and older can not be disqualified from voting due to age.

No, that isn't what they ruled. They ruled that some counties were getting their ballots counted three and four times while others were not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

So, you are saying that Federal Courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over an election to determine their federal electors?

Bush v. Gore should have been over immediately if that's true.

In Bush vs Gore the federal court ruled had Florida had violated equal protection clause of the constitution because counties were inconsistent in how they were making determinations on questionable ballots. Now if California applies its election laws consistently throughout the state I'm saying the only constitutional law that applies is that those 18 and older can not be disqualified from voting due to age.

The suit filed is because it violates our Constitution by putting additional requirements to become President of the United States. In the Gore case, the state courts allowed ballots to be recounted beyond seven days. The Florida law clearly states all ballots must be turned in and certified within seven days. The Supreme Court returned that verdict back to the Florida courts to ask them WTF they thought they were doing? It's called judicial legislation. There was no Al Gore law that allowed those ballots to be recounted beyond the deadline as the law was written.