Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You use the term "standard" because you know you can't use the term "law." Since it's not a law, Trump isn't required to follow it. What part of that can't you get through your thick skull?Requiring tax returns to be shown for Presidential candidates, is NOT some off the wall new standard.... it has been the standard for 4 decades or more.... people voting no know other standard. It does relate to the presidency, unlike a four minute mile. Trump BROKE that standard, California did NOT?No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
One state is trying to govern the entire United States.
.
It affects no other States, and their election process.
California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.
It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.
It's gerrymandering, it disfranshied (spl?) California voters
Damn again what's next California says you can only run for president if you can run a four minute mile
It targets Trump specifically...
It's more childish games by the democrats, tit for tat/lowering the bar some more.
Why does EVERYTHING, every rule, every standard, every protocol, NOT have to be followed by Trump? Nepotism, tax returns, security clearances, vetting of Admin and Cabinet positions, emoluments clause etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
this guy is such a pansy... everything has to be changed for him.... he's just so special.... special needs is more like it! special snowflake is also more like it.
Enough is enough, he needs to man up, stop lying, and put his big boy pants on.
What the hell is he trying to hide from us, after lying and telling ALL OF US THAT HE WOULD RELEASE HIS TAXES, once the audit was done....
No one can get this chronic liar to ever tell the truth, about anything. I don't trust him, and YOU shouldn't either imho!
I'm against poking into people's personal lives. Aren't you? You idiots screamed like hell over the Monica Lewinski scandal even though Clinton signed the law that made previous sexual misconduct valid evidence in sex crimes cases.I'm talking in general...why are you against vetting politicians ? Why are you against vetting trump even more to see if he is a corrupt or not ?The only point of this law is to screen out Republicans who have never held elective office.Away from the legality of this...why does it bother you that a candidate gets screened before he or she gets hold of your faith and the.countrys faith ?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.
Ya know, if the law said only republican candidates have to release their taxes and democratic politicians do not have to, then maybe I'd agree with you.... but every candidate having to do such, puts it on a level playing field...?They all have to do with facilitating the election process. None of them are arbitrary constraints designed to foster a political outcome.States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.
If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.
But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...
on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.
You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.
This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.
/——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
Republicans were fine with requiring a birth certificate to be on the ballotStates ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.
If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.
But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...
on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.
You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.
This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.
You will fight tooth and lie to protect your side. When the right pulls a similar liar move, and they will, I dsmn well better hear you defend THEIR right to conduct selective candidacy.Because they want to keep the standard that has been there for the past 40 years for candidates. Candidate Trump is the one that broke that standard, now making it a free for all for all other candidates.... and they do not want to see this happen with any candidate again, and in the future.Then why do it?No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
One state is trying to govern the entire United States.
.
It affects no other States, and their election process.
California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.
It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.
But it truly would not affect President Trump, with it being California....
I can think of no better illustration of what a fucksaurus you are than this statement from you.Republicans were fine with requiring a birth certificate to be on the ballotStates ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.
If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.
But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...
on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.
You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.
This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.
It is different when WE do it
I FEEL THIS WAY AND YOU SHOULD TOO!!!Requiring tax returns to be shown for Presidential candidates, is NOT some off the wall new standard.... it has been the standard for 4 decades or more.... people voting no know other standard. It does relate to the presidency, unlike a four minute mile. Trump BROKE that standard, California did NOT?No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
One state is trying to govern the entire United States.
.
It affects no other States, and their election process.
California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.
It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.
It's gerrymandering, it disfranshied (spl?) California voters
Damn again what's next California says you can only run for president if you can run a four minute mile
It targets Trump specifically...
It's more childish games by the democrats, tit for tat/lowering the bar some more.
Why does EVERYTHING, every rule, every standard, every protocol, NOT have to be followed by Trump? Nepotism, tax returns, security clearances, vetting of Admin and Cabinet positions, emoluments clause etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
this guy is such a pansy... everything has to be changed for him.... he's just so special.... special needs is more like it! special snowflake is also more like it.
Enough is enough, he needs to man up, stop lying, and put his big boy pants on.
What the hell is he trying to hide from us, after lying and telling ALL OF US THAT HE WOULD RELEASE HIS TAXES, once the audit was done....
No one can get this chronic liar to ever tell the truth, about anything. I don't trust him, and YOU shouldn't either imho!
We all know that Democrats would never nominate a businessman for the presidency. They only nominate professional politicians. We've seen what their propaganda organs do with the kind of tax returns a businessman files.Ya know, if the law said only republican candidates have to release their taxes and democratic politicians do not have to, then maybe I'd agree with you.... but every candidate having to do such, puts it on a level playing field...?They all have to do with facilitating the election process. None of them are arbitrary constraints designed to foster a political outcome.States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.
If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.
But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...
on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.
You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.
This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.
"Fucksaurus" - I am going to steal that.I can think of no better illustration of what a fucksaurus you are than this statement from you.Republicans were fine with requiring a birth certificate to be on the ballotStates ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.
If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.
But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...
on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.
You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.
This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.
It is different when WE do it
/—-/ More suits being filed today: RNC, Trump sue over Calif. law requiring tax returns to appear on ballotI 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.
Being a natural born citizen is a requirement to run for office, unlike publishing your income taxes.Republicans were fine with requiring a birth certificate to be on the ballotStates ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.
If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.
But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...
on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.
You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.
This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.
It is different when WE do it
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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President./——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President./——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?
/——/ Since when is a standard a legal requirement or in this case a Constitutional requirement?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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President./——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?
She uses nebulous terminology because she knows her ideas can't be supported with logic or facts./——/ Since when is a standard a legal requirement or in this case a Constitutional requirement?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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President./——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?
So, you are saying that Federal Courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over an election to determine their federal electors?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.
That might be true, if this is only to decide the primary within the GOP. I would love to see the efforts to try to keep Trump off the General Election ballot.But one important word in the thread's title was omitted that was included in post #1. That word being "primary". Heck, next year all the California Republicans need to do is instead hold a caucus.
Voluntarily....started under Nixon.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.
You have NO RIGHT to something he's not legally obligated to provide.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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President./——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.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???Will be fun to watch this go through the system.
I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?
