Posted on 11/24/2022 9:05:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
During my junior year in college, 1960–1961, I took the Constitutional Law course given by Dean Leonard W. Levy, one of the country's foremost con law scholars. In addition to his immense store of knowledge, he acknowledged the wisdom of common sense, noting that the response to Supreme Court decisions may depend on whose ox is gored. And he advised his students, in writing papers, "Strike while the iron is hot."
This New York Times headline, the lead story for November 23, has gotten my iron hot — and dander up. The print edition headline for the story:"JUSTICES DECIDE / AGAINST TRUMP / ON TAX RETURNS." These four words appear below: "WIN FOR HOUSE PANEL." (Here is the headline for the online version.)
This is to suggest that the justices decided not merely "against Trump," but for oppressive, unlimited government.
Did the Supreme Court merely decide against former president Trump, or did the justices decide against due process, legislative legitimacy, regular order in the House of Representatives, indeed, the Constitution itself? Clearly, and in weeks, months, and years to come, the American spirit of liberty will lead most observers to reflect that the justices did not only decide "against Trump," but also rule in favor of an irresponsible, totalitarian government.
Invoking Dean Levy's recognition that a vital element of con law is common sense — Occam's Razor, if you will — was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States "against Trump" based on a palpable fear that adherence to the Constitution's separation of powers principle would send radical, protesting mobs to the homes of the justices over the Thanksgiving Day weekend? Has the rule of law become tempered by fear of a mob that will not be thwarted by leftist officials?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I wonder how Biden’s taxes look? Maybe the second order of business should be to subpoena them. Not the public cover sheet, the in-depth worksheets with all the details then audit them against his assets.
And the bidens and all the congress critters. Open the flood gates.
seems, if I remember correctly, when this country started there were no income taxes.
Abolish Federal Income Tax
( thanks a lot, Abe )
And when the republicans take over the house just demand Biden’s tax returns then go after Hillary’s and Obama’s.
Exactly! Now do biden, mcturtle and pelousey.
Meanwhile, the Biden crime family suffers no such inquiry.
It’s good to know that Pelosi’s insider trading profits can be scrutinized.
Did USSC actually decide this, or just refuse to hear Trumps appeal? I don’t recall any arguments.
We are no longer a republic.
Whats legal and constitutional is whatever Deep State thinks it can get away with doing.
As for the SCOTUS, it’s Deep State’s rubber stamp.
Once folks wrap their heads around all of that, what’s going on makes perfect sense.
The left's over the top protest against those two always had a Brer Rabbit don't throw me in that briar patch feel to it.
Yep - like too many here, SCOTUS keeps finding nonexistent “Noble Cause Clauses”.
Far too many have had their minds twisted by Leftist crap without even realizing they have been brainwashed into corruption.
Precedent is kinda like Karma for the Democrats going forward. The DNC went scortched earth on America with Biden’s placement in power. However, the courts have proved to be one place where American’s see the Trump Card. Essentially, all politicians, going forward, have lost the cloak of shielding their finances.
Enter Joe Biden RICO Family, and the extended DNC/RNCe RICO. The courts will more quickly peel back the layers of political privilege.
Of course once the DNC is fully revealed to their communist Red Guard’s in the population - you know Gen Non-Bin... Generation Non-Binary, will seem like Cave Bats devouring their own.
Popcorn Time.
Let’s get and publish Bidet’s tax records. That might be interesting.
Social Conservatives, refusing to wholly trust Trump, gave us Pence and ACB. Trump kept his promises and the people got exactly what they voted for. Trump should not have a list of justices in a second term. He should vet them the way HE sees fit, ask them ANY questions HE wants to and pick someone HE is comfortable with. I’d like to see justices who aren’t vetted by each other sitting on the court.
The IRS has them, and will turn them over, if needed.
“Totally agree. They were infiltrators from the get go. And Trump fell for it.”
As you would’ve as well. If you could even function at that level and under those conditions.
That may be true, of course, but there were also covert R anti-Trumpers who provided corrupted advice.
To say, as does Revel upthread, that ...Trump fell for it, is to suggest that Trump did not seek or appropriately rely on the advice of those who presented as most qualified to provide such advice. The record suggests otherwise.
Incidentally, McConnell was most likely among those who influenced Trump. Perhaps McConnell's value as a R has been misunderstood.
Look at it this way. If Trump is re-elected, again, then he can go after the tax returns of SCOTUS and Fed justices, as well as Obama and Biden.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Much of the federal taxes that we pay should arguably regarded as stolen state revenues and money stolen from our wallets imo.
Good point.
I posted more than two years ago that his unwillingness to turn over business documents wasn’t so much to protect his own self, but to protect and shield those who did business with him.
Now Trump supporters are fed up, ready to go on offense.
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.