Supreme Court temporarily blocks release of Trump tax returns

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-trump-tax-returns

[90DayFinancier 910]

49 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-trump-tax-returns

Are they waiting for Ginsburg so they can vote?

[luckytxn 2,264]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-trump-tax-returns

Heh. Love how the Socialists will be triggered from this.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but this is wholly expected. I would have been shocked if there hadn't been an administrative stay of release. It is also fully possible that the Court may elect not to rule on the issue at all. Zero to see here, folks.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, elmcitymaven said:

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but this is wholly expected. I would have been shocked if there hadn't been an administrative stay of release. It is also fully possible that the Court may elect not to rule on the issue at all. Zero to see here, folks.

 

  Well I knew there was a reason this didn't make the Trump wins again thread. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

I'm really amazed at how much political theater is making its way through government in the form of court rulings and the utilization of Congress. There is no lawful substantive reason, which is why SCOTUS doesn't need to necessarily hear the merits of demanding the tax returns (as in, what charges necessitate seeing them), potentially damaging legitimate oversight in the future.

 

Rather, they can dismiss this citing the fact that these are being attempted by states and Congress due to lawfare, attempting to use government power against Trump as a citizen (re: Strzok's insurance policy) and not because they care about potential crimes. You can't have government power incessantly violate a citizen's 4th to 6th amendments, have a starting premise of "get Trump", and then try and use government power, via state government, Congress, or the courts, against them to find something to get them for, eventually claiming that this exercise of power was legitimate because you claim they may have violated laws. The intent is clearly to punish Trump for winning an election, it's also because some mentally unstable people involved in this web of relationships don't know how to function without having the connections they spent their lives building up, so rather than deal with Trump being President and potentially losing out on those relationships having power, having to figure out how to go about things now, they'd just throw a giant wrecking ball into the country itself. Unimaginably selfish, dangerous, and something a sociopath does. But that is where they are now. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Well I knew there was a reason this didn't make the Trump wins again thread. 

Well, it's kind of boring. Needs more boobies. 

[luckytxn 2,264]

6 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but this is wholly expected. I would have been shocked if there hadn't been an administrative stay of release. It is also fully possible that the Court may elect not to rule on the issue at all. Zero to see here, folks.

Well duh.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I'm really amazed at how much political theater is making its way through government in the form of court rulings and the utilization of Congress. There is no lawful substantive reason, which is why SCOTUS doesn't need to necessarily hear the merits of demanding the tax returns (as in, what charges necessitate seeing them), potentially damaging legitimate oversight in the future.

 

Rather, they can dismiss this citing the fact that these are being attempted by states and Congress due to lawfare, attempting to use government power against Trump as a citizen (re: Strzok's insurance policy) and not because they care about potential crimes. You can't have government power incessantly violate a citizen's 4th to 6th amendments, have a starting premise of "get Trump", and then try and use government power, via state government, Congress, or the courts, against them to find something to get them for, eventually claiming that this exercise of power was legitimate because you claim they may have violated laws. The intent is clearly to punish Trump for winning an election, it's also because some mentally unstable people involved in this web of relationships don't know how to function without having the connections they spent their lives building up, so rather than deal with Trump being President and potentially losing out on those relationships having power, having to figure out how to go about things now, they'd just throw a giant wrecking ball into the country itself. Unimaginably selfish, dangerous, and something a sociopath does. But that is where they are now. 

How exactly are Trump's 6th Amendment rights implicated here? If you're basing it on the Confrontation Clause, it's inapplicable here (no criminal proceeding is at issue with the Congressional investigation). I won't get into the "substance" of your other claims, which are simply gussied up nonsense that traffics in conspiracy theories. 

 

Further, if SCOTUS elects not to hear the merits of demanding the returns, the outcome will be the maintenance of the status quo, i.e., the returns are turned over by Mazars. It must consider the merits in order to overturn the ruling of the lower appellate court.

[90DayFinancier 910]

32 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

How exactly are Trump's 6th Amendment rights implicated here? If you're basing it on the Confrontation Clause, it's inapplicable here (no criminal proceeding is at issue with the Congressional investigation). I won't get into the "substance" of your other claims, which are simply gussied up nonsense that traffics in conspiracy theories. 

 

Further, if SCOTUS elects not to hear the merits of demanding the returns, the outcome will be the maintenance of the status quo, i.e., the returns are turned over by Mazars. It must consider the merits in order to overturn the ruling of the lower appellate court.

Vinny strikes again.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

How exactly are Trump's 6th Amendment rights implicated here? If you're basing it on the Confrontation Clause, it's inapplicable here (no criminal proceeding is at issue with the Congressional investigation). I won't get into the "substance" of your other claims, which are simply gussied up nonsense that traffics in conspiracy theories. 

 

Further, if SCOTUS elects not to hear the merits of demanding the returns, the outcome will be the maintenance of the status quo, i.e., the returns are turned over by Mazars. It must consider the merits in order to overturn the ruling of the lower appellate court.

While the Trump 6th is hypothetical (just like due process is a hypothetical in impeachment), the 6th surrounding Trump people is not, and the targeting of Trump admin people is just as relevant here. However, more relevantly, the biased, prejudging, and corrupt premise and nature of why Trump is specifically being attacked can actually be addressed, and throw out the case, without addressing the "bigger question" (the bigger question becomes irrelevant if the government is using its authority in bad faith), because Trump as a citizen, which is directly relevant to government uses of power against him personally, is owed the basic dignity of not having government weaponized against him. As a citizen myself, as well, authority can invent any reason to endlessly harass me, it doesn't mean that cases they bring before me should be heard just because, in their fervent bad faith targeting of me for *something*, they found some piece to try and prosecute me for. As a citizen, the same applies to Trump. His tax returns have already been targets by several jurisdictions including a state trying to force Trump's tax returns by illegally changing the Constitution. It's clear that this is by design political and not related to law enforcement.

[90DayFinancier 910]

45 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

While the Trump 6th is hypothetical (just like due process is a hypothetical in impeachment), the 6th surrounding Trump people is not, and the targeting of Trump admin people is just as relevant here. However, more relevantly, the biased, prejudging, and corrupt premise and nature of why Trump is specifically being attacked can actually be addressed, and throw out the case, without addressing the "bigger question" (the bigger question becomes irrelevant if the government is using its authority in bad faith), because Trump as a citizen, which is directly relevant to government uses of power against him personally, is owed the basic dignity of not having government weaponized against him. As a citizen myself, as well, authority can invent any reason to endlessly harass me, it doesn't mean that cases they bring before me should be heard just because, in their fervent bad faith targeting of me for *something*, they found some piece to try and prosecute me for. As a citizen, the same applies to Trump. His tax returns have already been targets by several jurisdictions including a state trying to force Trump's tax returns by illegally changing the Constitution. It's clear that this is by design political and not related to law enforcement.

Paragraphs are our friend.

[laylalex 7,293]

2 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Paragraphs are our friend.

Again, I am but a lowly art history major, but that first sentence is hella run-on.

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, laylalex said:

Again, I am but a lowly art history major, but that first sentence is hella run-on.

I really try to not post socially when combining day time cold medicines.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

15 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Paragraphs are our friend.

 

11 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Again, I am but a lowly art history major, but that first sentence is hella run-on.

 

☝️