Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California high court strikes down state law targeting Trump tax returns
The Hill ^ | 11/21/19 | John Kruzel and Naomi Jagoda

Posted on 11/21/2019 11:49:21 AM PST by rdl6989

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: rdl6989

I guess they understood the concept of Bill of Attainder after all.


21 posted on 11/21/2019 12:34:28 PM PST by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust the Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Just this week my wife and I received a mailing from the State asking us to check which party’s 2020 primary ballot we wanted to receive in the mail.

The GOP was not on it. I explained to my wife why and how this bogus law would be shortly overturned. How much taxpayer $$$ did the State of CA spend mailing out these bogus questionnaires and then having to remail the new set in teh future, I wonder? Basta*ds. I honestly think the only reason they mailed them out was to thumb their red noses at the GOP voters here in CA.

We discussed checking “Democrat” and then voting for whoever is the craziest candidate in the primary. Still might do it.


22 posted on 11/21/2019 12:37:11 PM PST by Simon Foxx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I would say that the CA court knows full well that the law does not stand a chance in the USSC. The law clearly violates the Federal Constitution which sets the rules for being president.


23 posted on 11/21/2019 12:46:45 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

I assume that because the provision violated the State Constitution, the California Supreme Court saw no need to address Federal issues. Violating the state constitution was enough t strike down the provision.


24 posted on 11/21/2019 1:12:17 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps (Hi! I'm the Dread Pirate Roberts! (TM) Atsk about franchise opportunities in your area.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

I figured that, too. The CA Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether they were violating federal law.


25 posted on 11/21/2019 1:13:24 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

They could see how the feds could render California electoral votes null in the next Presidential election if they failed to abide by federal law by not putting a qualified Presidential candidate on their ballot.

All of their electoral votes would have been stricken from the roll. Only the other 49 states would have voted for President.

The CA SC didn’t do this because it was the right thing to do. They did it to stay relevant as a state and be counted. Pretty sure this was their plan all along. This was nothing more than a statement and election ploy to beat Trump in CA. I don’t know what they were worried about. Twenty million dead or illegal people vote in CA every time the way the dems want them to.


26 posted on 11/21/2019 1:20:20 PM PST by Boomer (Epstein didn't kill himself...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

Trump appointments upholding the rule of law.

Excellent.


27 posted on 11/21/2019 1:24:28 PM PST by Jonny7797
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonny7797

Um, the President does not appoint the Supreme Court of the State of California.


28 posted on 11/21/2019 1:27:39 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps (Hi! I'm the Dread Pirate Roberts! (TM) Atsk about franchise opportunities in your area.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

I don’t think this is good enough, the Court should have Found the State in COntempt for even [passing this, then The COurt should have Ordered the State to PAY ALL Court Costs and Pay the President Lawye5rs too, then referred the AG Becerra to the BAR Association for Permanent Disbarment.


29 posted on 11/21/2019 1:28:10 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Maybe they stepped in one pile of human feces too many, and came to their senses.


30 posted on 11/21/2019 1:30:44 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

There on the wall !! Can you see that writing?

(the court did)


31 posted on 11/21/2019 1:31:01 PM PST by bert ( (KE. NP. N.C. +12) Progressives are existential American enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

CA can still send an appeal to the federal 9th circuit court./s


32 posted on 11/21/2019 1:35:14 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

The justices don’t want to set a precedent which could bring their own financial shenanigans to light on request of an opponent.


33 posted on 11/21/2019 1:55:35 PM PST by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5; bert

Hoping.


34 posted on 11/21/2019 2:09:11 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

Pinch me
Can these be real?


35 posted on 11/21/2019 2:10:57 PM PST by ptsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989
Hmm. I wonder who is worrying this kind of law will apply to them some day along the road. And maybe it will apply not just to the president.

36 posted on 11/21/2019 3:03:09 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (Kill-googl,TWTR,FCBK,NYT,WaPo,Hwd,CNN,NFL,BLM,CAIR,Antfa,SPLC,ESPN,NPR,NBA,ARP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

It amounted to a bill of attainder.


37 posted on 11/21/2019 5:00:15 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Everyone who favors socialism plans on the government taking other people's money, not theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Staring in disbelief: a CA court could figure this out? Follow obvious law which prevents the attempt to violate our governmental representatives rights to privacy. Amazing.


38 posted on 11/21/2019 7:37:03 PM PST by veracious (UN=OIC=Islam; USgov may be radically changed, just amend USConstitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

It also violated CA Constitution on Right to Privacy.
Much of the Left uses this to protect much of their political activity.
Setting a President opened the door they didn’t want opened


39 posted on 11/21/2019 9:37:38 PM PST by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989
as a condition to appearing on the state’s ballot for the Republican primaries.

I still don't understand why the states are involved in the primaries at all. That should be a function 100% under the political parties themselves.
40 posted on 11/22/2019 7:42:53 AM PST by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson