Trump Is Hiding His Taxes

[Thinker101]

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I know this would never cross your mind, but there may have been good legal cases presented.

Administrations, both republican and democrat win about 70% of their cases. The Trump win rate stands at 6% which is why conservatives constantly blame loses on liberal judges even thou many of those judges were far from being liberal.

There's a simple reason for the administration’s repeated defeats. In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, where required, public input. In 2/3 of the cases, the administration was trying to short cut the legal procedures by failing to present sufficient grounds for the court to rule in there favor.

What you apparently do not understand about federal judges is all of them have politician biases, some strong and some weak but they all have some politician leaning. Regardless of the judges biases, his decision will be reviewed if either party carries the case forward. In each decision, the judge will specify the legal precedents, evidence of the case, and how his decision was reached. Any judge that does not base his decision on sold legal grounds will be overturned, regardless of his political opinion.

For a judge, having his decisions overturned is akin to an employee whose boss is constantly overriding him. He find himself with lesser assignments and not being considering for higher positions. Political partisanship of federal judges is greatly overstayed.
Why Is the Trump Administration Always Getting Shut Down in Court?

Yep, doesn't seem to bother the 9th circuit court though.
Liberal Ninth Circuit Court Is Overturned in Recent Years 80% of Time

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight.

How is looking at Trump returns from 2016 and earlier, "oversight of the executive branch"?

 

[Flopper]

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight.

How is looking at Trump returns from 2016 and earlier, "oversight of the executive branch"?

A legislative body cannot legislate effectively in the absence of information with respect to the conditions which legislation is intended to affect. Experience has taught us that mere requests for such information often leads to inaccurate and often misleading information.

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited. For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing? Is the IRS just sitting on the returns because the president directed them to do so? And finally why is Trump hiding the information anyway?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do you Trumpsters believe President Trump when he tells you he would give us his irs tax returns IF HE WERE NOT under audit?

Or do you believe he is lying about that...?

What are you thinking? He's bluffing, he's lying?

He said it again yesterday.... so, is he telling the truth, or not?

Who gives a flying farck!? Seriously, doesn't Congress have ANYTHING more important to deal with?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight.

How is looking at Trump returns from 2016 and earlier, "oversight of the executive branch"?

A legislative body cannot legislate effectively in the absence of information with respect to the conditions which legislation is intended to affect. Experience has taught us that mere requests for such information often leads to inaccurate and often misleading information.

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited. For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing? Is the IRS just sitting on the returns because the president directed them to do so? And finally why is Trump hiding the information anyway?

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

You're right, their request has nothing to do with appropriations. Or oversight.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited.

So what? Maybe he's just fucking with you clowns?

For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing?

Large corporations are basically under constant audit.

 

[Flopper]

Do you Trumpsters believe President Trump when he tells you he would give us his irs tax returns IF HE WERE NOT under audit?

Or do you believe he is lying about that...?

What are you thinking? He's bluffing, he's lying?

He said it again yesterday.... so, is he telling the truth, or not?

Who gives a flying farck!? Seriously, doesn't Congress have ANYTHING more important to deal with?

Legislating, funding, and oversight of goverment is there job.

 

[Flopper]

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight.

How is looking at Trump returns from 2016 and earlier, "oversight of the executive branch"?

A legislative body cannot legislate effectively in the absence of information with respect to the conditions which legislation is intended to affect. Experience has taught us that mere requests for such information often leads to inaccurate and often misleading information.

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited. For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing? Is the IRS just sitting on the returns because the president directed them to do so? And finally why is Trump hiding the information anyway?

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

You're right, their request has nothing to do with appropriations. Or oversight.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited.

So what? Maybe he's just fucking with you clowns?

For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing?

Large corporations are basically under constant audit.

That may be true but sure as hell it doesn't take forever to audit a tax return even in our largest corporations.

Trump is wrong. He can supply his tax return to who every he pleases at anytime regardless of whether IRS is auditing or not. What he means is can't provide a final return after audit.

One thing we may agree on; Trump may certainly be fucking with congress and specifically the democrats. Just suppose he knows quite well that there is absolutely nothing in his tax returns the least bit incriminating but he decides to drive the democrats nuts, by refuses to release his tax return. Then in the middle of the 2020 campaign he supplies it claiming it totally vindicates him of any accusation of financial wrong doing in his business.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Damn you're really slow on the uptake, the chairman gave a sham reason for requesting the presidents returns. Had you bothered to read the damn letter you'd know that. Congress has oversight of the executive agencies, NOT the president personally. Feel free to keep pretending this isn't a political fishing expedition, you're only fooling yourself.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight.

How is looking at Trump returns from 2016 and earlier, "oversight of the executive branch"?

A legislative body cannot legislate effectively in the absence of information with respect to the conditions which legislation is intended to affect. Experience has taught us that mere requests for such information often leads to inaccurate and often misleading information.

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited. For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing? Is the IRS just sitting on the returns because the president directed them to do so? And finally why is Trump hiding the information anyway?

Congress needs oversight for the same reason the owners of a business need it. They can not solve problems without first hand information and they need to know exactly where the money they are appropriated is going.

You're right, their request has nothing to do with appropriations. Or oversight.

According to Donald Trump he can not surrender his tax returns because they are being audited.

So what? Maybe he's just fucking with you clowns?

For 8 years? What the fuck is the IRS doing?

Large corporations are basically under constant audit.

That may be true but sure as hell it doesn't take forever to audit a tax return even in our largest corporations.

Trump is wrong. He can supply his tax return to who every he pleases at anytime regardless of whether IRS is auditing or not. What he means is can't provide a final return after audit.

One thing we may agree on; Trump may certainly be fucking with congress and specifically the democrats. Just suppose he knows quite well that there is absolutely nothing in his tax returns the least bit incriminating but he decides to drive the democrats nuts, by refuses to release his tax return. Then in the middle of the 2020 campaign he supplies it claiming it totally vindicates him of any accusation of financial wrong doing in his business.

That may be true but sure as hell it doesn't take forever to audit a tax return even in our largest corporations.

So what?

Trump is wrong. He can supply his tax return to who every he pleases at anytime regardless of whether IRS is auditing or not.

He's fucking with you.

 

[Flopper]

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Damn you're really slow on the uptake, the chairman gave a sham reason for requesting the presidents returns. Had you bothered to read the damn letter you'd know that. Congress has oversight of the executive agencies, NOT the president personally. Feel free to keep pretending this isn't a political fishing expedition, you're only fooling yourself.

.

It doesn't matter because the law does not require any reason. Oversight is a responsibility of congress. It never requires a reason because by definition oversight is monitoring, surveillance, and supervision. All congress has to do is follow the law and request the information they want. That's it. Whether they suspect the president of wrong going, the head the IRS of stopping the audit, or whatever is totally irrelevant. Congress can dig into anything going on in the executive branch anytime for any reason or no reason.

 

[hadit]

Do you Trumpsters believe President Trump when he tells you he would give us his irs tax returns IF HE WERE NOT under audit?

Or do you believe he is lying about that...?

What are you thinking? He's bluffing, he's lying?

He said it again yesterday.... so, is he telling the truth, or not?

Who gives a flying farck!? Seriously, doesn't Congress have ANYTHING more important to deal with?

Legislating, funding, and oversight of goverment is there job.

And if oversight was what they really wanted, they have readily available to them the tax returns of multiple presidents, stretching back many years. But that's not what they really want.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why is the left so intent on using government power to destroy the president, not for doing something necessarily "illegal," but something that might look from a business perspective, smart, yet from the POV of public service, despicable?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I'd love to see a system of rating judges, based on how many times they are overturned, and a number beyond which they would be impeached/fired.

Happens in other lines of work.

 

[MisterBeale]

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I'd love to see a system of rating judges, based on how many times they are overturned, and a number beyond which they would be impeached/fired.

Happens in other lines of work.

. . . yes . ..

a "kangaroo/banana republicesque" indicator to gauge the chance of how much corruption, corporate and political influence/money will influence the ruling. Brilliant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I'd love to see a system of rating judges, based on how many times they are overturned, and a number beyond which they would be impeached/fired.

Happens in other lines of work.

. . . yes . ..

a "kangaroo/banana republicesque" indicator to gauge the chance of how much corruption, corporate and political influence/money will influence the ruling. Brilliant.

The mistake most make is imputing an honor and knowledge to 'judges' which is undeserved.

It was well known here in NYC that one 'contributed' a year or two of salary to the party to become a judge.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I'd love to see a system of rating judges, based on how many times they are overturned, and a number beyond which they would be impeached/fired.

Happens in other lines of work.

. . . yes . ..

a "kangaroo/banana republicesque" indicator to gauge the chance of how much corruption, corporate and political influence/money will influence the ruling. Brilliant.

The mistake most make is imputing an honor and knowledge to 'judges' which is undeserved.

It was well known here in NYC that one 'contributed' a year or two of salary to the party to become a judge.....

Can I count on your vote when I run for queen of this nation?

 

[MisterBeale]

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I'd love to see a system of rating judges, based on how many times they are overturned, and a number beyond which they would be impeached/fired.

Happens in other lines of work.

. . . yes . ..

a "kangaroo/banana republicesque" indicator to gauge the chance of how much corruption, corporate and political influence/money will influence the ruling. Brilliant.

The mistake most make is imputing an honor and knowledge to 'judges' which is undeserved.

It was well known here in NYC that one 'contributed' a year or two of salary to the party to become a judge.....

Can I count on your vote when I run for queen of this nation?

Women belong in the home. . . .

. . . . anyone that tells you differently is a Marxist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I'd love to see a system of rating judges, based on how many times they are overturned, and a number beyond which they would be impeached/fired.

Happens in other lines of work.

. . . yes . ..

a "kangaroo/banana republicesque" indicator to gauge the chance of how much corruption, corporate and political influence/money will influence the ruling. Brilliant.

The mistake most make is imputing an honor and knowledge to 'judges' which is undeserved.

It was well known here in NYC that one 'contributed' a year or two of salary to the party to become a judge.....

Can I count on your vote when I run for queen of this nation?

Women belong in the home. . . .

. . . . anyone that tells you differently is a Marxist.

I don't select representatives based on genitalia,......or skin color.





Relax, Bealey....I saw your tongue-in-cheek.

 

[jc456]

Do you Trumpsters believe President Trump when he tells you he would give us his irs tax returns IF HE WERE NOT under audit?

Or do you believe he is lying about that...?

What are you thinking? He's bluffing, he's lying?

He said it again yesterday.... so, is he telling the truth, or not?

Who gives a flying farck!? Seriously, doesn't Congress have ANYTHING more important to deal with?

Legislating, funding, and oversight of goverment is there job.

And if oversight was what they really wanted, they have readily available to them the tax returns of multiple presidents, stretching back many years. But that's not what they really want.

what do they want oversight of? that is the question that hasn't been asked. why?

 

[Papageorgio]

What could you ask them about his returns without seeing them?

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Not true. Oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress but an implied power of Congress, implied by the need to see how govenment agencies are functioning in order to carry out Congress's legislative function, and access to the President's taxes is in no way going to aid Congress in its legislative function. This will go to the courts after the Democrats do their little dance over it and in 3 or 4 years the Supreme Courts will issue its decision and you will see I am right.

The fact that they're insisting on only seeing Trump's returns makes it a partisan hunt. They didn't even pretend to go after multiple presidents' returns.

In case you haven't heard, every president since Nixon has released their tax returns. They are already available.

Since Nixon, how many Presidential candidate's taxes did you look through?