SCOTUS rules 7-2... Trump's tax returns
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
That settles it. Per CowboyUp Biden shouldn’t have to reveal his Senate papers until Trump has to reveal his tax returns. How soon before Biden unlocks his papers and opens them up for transparent public inspection? Is this afternoon too soon?
Not the name I expected from ISIS's nuke expert
Not quite correct on the tweet. The SCOTUS kicked the can down the road and sent it back to the lower court and said that Trump can continue to bring forth different reasons for not sharing returns. Same old Same old.
Maybe they’ll see those tax returns a year from now, if ever. LMFAO!!!!! (Man, that original tweet sure whiffed it)
Once the NY Prosecutors do get the tax returns, how long before they are 'leaked' to the media?
If by that you mean that SCOTUS rejected each and every argument Trump made on appeal, affirmed the lower court decision commanding him to turn them over and remanded for further proceedings in that court consistent with their rejection of his claims and affirmation of the decision commanding him to produce...yeah they kicked the can down the road.
If by that you mean that SCOTUS rejected each and every argument Trump made on appeal, affirmed the lower court decision commanding him to turn them over and remanded for further proceedings in that court consistent with their rejection of his claims and affirmation of the decision commanding him to produce...yeah they kicked the can down the road.
Did the SCOTUS rule that Trump had to show his returns or not? Knowing the answer is they did not all that other BS you posted is exactly that, BS. SCOTUS kicked the can down the road.
That's not the way the SCOTUS issues rulings and (I hope) you know that. They reaffirm or reverse the lower court decision.
Furthermore, they limited his arguments in the lower court to which it is remanded to a single issue and argument previously left unresolved by the lower court....absolutely did not decide that he may bring forth different reasons for not sharing returns.
So no, they did not kick the can down the road. They remanded on a single issue that had not previously been decided on by the lower court, and with an opinion that pretty strongly suggests their view on that particular single issue as well.
If only they had done that on Obamacare, hence your argument is once again BS
Whataboutism and a continued obsession with Obama instead of argument to the facts of this particular case we are discussing.
I'm gonna take that as a concession of defeat.
Peace out.
Laugh My ASS OFF.
Our Judicial System is 100% whataboutisms in the form of precedent.
You can take you ball and go home like the neighborhood spoiled brat but it's not going to change the fact SCOTUS kicked the can down the road.
Believe it or not I agree with them delaying a ruling. The SCOTUS should not be involved in election issues during election years.
Mueller already went through all this and found what?
I don't think they wanted to get in the middle of a political issue as that is what it has become. Trump can work on the lower courts to get a decision. In fact, they gave a road map to Trump to make it easy for him.
Last edited:
From pg 21 of the ruling, last paragraph.
"The arguments presented here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate. 941 F. 3d, at
646, n. 19.6"
To me this reads that they can raise further arguments as appropriate.
Rule of Law wins today!!
Still a nation of Laws!!
Nobody above the Law!!
Law & Order baybee!!!
Good guys win again!!
Gorsuch!! Gorsuch!! Gorsuch!!!
Still a nation of Laws!!
Nobody above the Law!!
Law & Order baybee!!!
Good guys win again!!
Gorsuch!! Gorsuch!! Gorsuch!!!
And right above your citation is a discussion of what those further limited appropriate arguments are, the trial courts authority in deciding those with indication of how this court will resolve those if they see them again.
Which is a good distance from “kicking the can down the road”.
Last edited:
As your citation from the opinion, right above it....are the paragraph’s I am referring to in that response.
As for reading opinions instead of media’s interpretations, mucho kudos..
My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who saw the Supreme Court pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.
As a result, “once the President sets forth and explains a conflict between judicial proceeding and public duties,” or shows that an order or subpoena would “significantly interfere with his efforts to carry out” those duties, “the matter changes.” Clinton, 520 U. S., at 710, 714 (opinion of BREYER, J.). At that point, a court should use its inherent authority to quash or modify the subpoena, if necessary to ensure that such “interference with the President’s duties would not occur.” Id., at 708 (opinion of the Court).
To me, this leaves the door open to more motions to be filed to avoid submitting his taxes. That's what I mean by kicking the can.
To me, this leaves the door open to more motions to be filed to avoid submitting his taxes. That's what I mean by kicking the can.
Atlanta Rhythm Section does a great version of that song...in fact, it may be better. Minor 7th chords.
And that is what I mean by remanded with limited further options and direction of how they are likely to rule on those if they come back up.
That trial court's inherent authority to quash or modify the subpoena is going to be subject to an "abuse of discretion" standard which is a very high standard to establish on appeal.
To me, "kicking the can" is not deciding much of, if anythinig and sending it back without resolving the issues that were placed before them....standing issue remands, ripeness remands, things like that. The Supreme Court resolved every single issue that was placed before them by Trump's appeal, and that....to me....is absolutely not kicking the can down the road.
Last edited:
The questions before the court were those raised in Trump's appeal....of which they resolved each and every one clearly and resoundingly.
I see what you are doing....even if they don't.
And what "election issue" were they even asked to resolve in the appeal during an election year?
