Trump's Taxes

#204
#204
Supreme Court questions limits of congressional subpoena power, presidential immunity in Trump tax return cases

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the validity of using the president as a "case study" for potential future legislation. She said this could violate restrictions against exposing for the sake of exposure.

Justice Neil Gorsuch said that normally law enforcement measures are taken to investigate evidence of a particular crime, not to look into an individual to see if a crime had been committed.

"This has become a pitched battle," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed, recognizing Trump's refusal to publicly release his tax records, as recent presidents have done. Ginsburg added that there have been many more burdensome subpoena requests to presidents than the current ones that were complied with.

She and Justice Elena Kagan noted previous accommodation and cooperation between the two political branches avoided similar impasses.

Ginsburg also addressed concerns that Congress could use their power to harass a political rival. Letter stated that precedent from the Clinton v. Jones case says the court is there to keep any political harassment of the president in check.

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the extent Congress could act on requests for private financial information.

"It could be every grand jury, every prosecutor," said Thomas. "It gets out of control," adding the result could be that it "debilitates the president."

Letter acknowledged that a "massive" number of subpoenas to the president could be a problem if it overloads the White House, but he claimed that there is no danger of this here because the subpoenas are for financial institutions, not him. Trump is not being asked to do anything, he said.

Justice Stephen Breyer pushed back on this argument, stating that it would take "time and effort" for the president to deal with subpoenas, even if they are for third parties, if he wants to "monitor" what documents are involved so he could determine if any privileges apply or figure out how to answer any questions.

Supreme Court questions limits of congressional subpoena power, presidential immunity in Trump tax return cases
 
#205
#205
Traveling and not current in News. I am aware the SC was to hear oral arguments from both sides today. All testimony was rendered through the lower courts. All courts up to the Supremes have ruled Trump must release his tax returns. We’ll soon see if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have allegiance to you, the Citizen, or to Trump and every future President to come down the pike
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#206
#206
PointGuard said:
Traveling and not current in News. I am aware the SC was to hear oral arguments from both sides today. All testimony was rendered through the lower courts. All courts up to the Supremes have ruled Trump must release his tax returns. We’ll soon see if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have allegiance to you, the Citizen, or to Trump and every future President to come down the pike
Click to expand...
Joke of a post
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#209
#209
PointGuard said:
Traveling and not current in News. I am aware the SC was to hear oral arguments from both sides today. All testimony was rendered through the lower courts. All courts up to the Supremes have ruled Trump must release his tax returns. We’ll soon see if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have allegiance to you, the Citizen, or to Trump and every future President to come down the pike
Click to expand...
SCOTUS should only have allegiance to the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, Rickyvol77, GordonC and 1 other person
#211
#211
MontyPython said:
Well, did he grab her by the * first?
Click to expand...

Why not? The new normal was set by a Trump. Of his own admission, it was acknowledged via video tape he admitted he could “grab em by the *, and 18 other woman makes sexual allegations against him

No double standards
 
Last edited:
#212
#212
hog88 said:
SCOTUS should only have allegiance to the constitution.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not all matters the supremes agree to hear are wedded to the Constitution; and, those that are - frequently are subject to interpretation. In those matters there are legitimate differences in interpretation and without a political bias which is why in constitutional matters the vote is not 9 zip
 
#213
#213
Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching underwater
You never can hit who you're trying for
Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside
Oh, everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Oh, everyone believes
And no one's going quietly
 
#214
#214
PointGuard said:
Unfortunately not all matters the supremes agree to hear are wedded to the Constitution; and, those that are - frequently are subject to interpretation. In those matters there are legitimate differences in interpretation and without a political bias which is why in constitutional matters the vote is not 9 zip
Click to expand...

Everything they decide on must be decided within the bounds of the constitution.

Now is that reality? No, and that is why we need term limits on justices and the ability to remove judges that stray from their mission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, volfanhill and PointGuard
#215
#215
PointGuard said:
Why not? The new normal was set by a Trump. Of his own admission, it was acknowledged via video tape he admitted he could “grab em by the *, and 18 other woman makes sexual allegations against him

No double standards
Click to expand...

How many of the 18 came forward AFTER the "you've got to grab them by the * " boast was being promoted so heavily by the MSM? Don't suppose any of them saw an opportunity to grab a settlent from the billionaire in exchange for shutting up their mouths or to get paid by the DNC? Let's see their tax returns and have the IRS audit the DNC and have the FBI dig through all of their records.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and StarRaider
#216
#216
Weezer said:
The nightmare was our choices were Trump and Hillary. While I'm not a fan of either, I still feel like the lesser of two evils won. That says a lot about what I think of Hillary.
Click to expand...


Glad you are better.

Now go get a soul transplant, too !! (Kidding)
 
#217
#217
Electric Orange said:
Have we ruled who among us thinks its okay to vote for Biden if he did in fact rape someone?
Click to expand...
All dems. Don’t let them fool you that they believe all women or are suddenly concerned over sexual assault. It’s only when an R is accused that it matters. They loved Bill they loved the Kennedys and have no problem voting for O’Biden even if he assaulted a woman
 
#218
#218
ifj6467mndy41.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and BowlBrother85
#219
#219
Electric Orange said:
Have we ruled who among us thinks its okay to vote for Biden if he did in fact rape someone?
Click to expand...
Have we ruled who among us, dismissed the allegations made against Donald Trump in 2016 as being politically motivated, by women such as Elizabeth Jean Carroll, but are suddenly anxious to believe the allegations made against Joe Biden, because these allegations are now of benefit to their own political agenda?

There are simply too many political ramifications in the middle of a presidential campaign for such allegations to be taken seriously. If Tara Reade wanted her allegations to avoid the appearance of being politically motivated, she should have brought them forward before Biden was running for president. She certainly did have more than enough time to do so. Why didn't she say something while Biden was the Vice President of the United States for 8 years, and a high profile member of the United States Senate prior to that? She has never answered that question. You can't escape the political component to her timing.
 
Last edited:
#220
#220
BowlBrother85 said:
Have we ruled who among us, dismissed the allegations made against Donald Trump in 2016 as being politically motivated, by women such as Elizabeth Jean Carroll, but are suddenly anxious to believe the allegations made against Joe Biden, because these allegations are now of benefit to their own political agenda?

There are simply too many political ramifications in the middle of a presidential campaign for such allegations to be taken seriously. If Tara Reade wanted her allegations to avoid the appearance of being politically motivated, she should have brought them forward before Biden was running for president. She certainly did have more than enough time to do so. Why didn't she say something while Biden was the Vice President of the United States for 8 years, and a high profile member of the United States Senate prior to that? She has never answered that question. You can't escape the political component to her timing.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you. Been too long and just political bringing it up now. I am not going to bother to see what you said about Kavanaugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top