Federal judge blocks California law to force disclosure of Trump’s tax returns

LA Times ^ | Sept. 19, 2019 | John Myers

[Innovative]

A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction Thursday against California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns for a spot on the presidential primary ballot, an early victory for President Trump but a decision that will undoubtedly be appealed by state officials.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. said he would issue a final ruling in the coming days but took the unusual step of issuing the tentative order from the bench. He said there would be “irreparable harm without temporary relief” for Trump and other candidates from the law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July.

Morrison spent much of the court proceeding on the question of whether a long

[Nothingburger]

Good observation, FRiend. How many people even know what a bill of attainder is?

[A Navy Vet]

"California is in a state of insurrection against the Constitution."

This new requirement to be President and their Sanctuary Laws are absolutely contrary to the Constitution. Pres. Trump is fighting back. Remember back when AZ law tried to enforce border security and was shot down by the USSC? They said it wasn't a State's right to enforce such, it was a Fedgov obligation. I agreed with the finding, even though being a States' Rights advocate. I follow the Constitution first!

[Eleutheria5]

So he must be an Uncle Tom, because GWB was a racist, and so was the Senate that confirmed him./s

[Eleutheria5]

And voter ID is of course racist./s

[Eleutheria5]

And now they’re claiming states’ rights to defy federal law! Where are the judges on that?

[Svartalfiar]

A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction Thursday against California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns for a spot on the presidential primary ballot, an early victory for President Trump but a decision that will undoubtedly be appealed by state officials.

If we got rid of this crap, this wouldn't be an issue. Why is the State in any way controlling, or involved with, a primary? They should only be concerned with the general elections - any and all primaries should be handled exclusively by the parties the primary is for. Not only will this get the State/Cities out of interfering with the process, it'll save a lot of $$ for the municipalities/counties running elections. And, it just makes plain sense.

[A Navy Vet]

"And now they’re claiming states’ rights to defy federal law!"

IIRC without reading my pocket Constitution, the individual States DO have the right to their ballot and electoral process. So it's a mixed bag.

[Eleutheria5]

But immigration is exclusively a federal matter, as stated in that Nevada case, and California is deliberately defying the federal government and laws to shelter illegal invaders. On electoral and ballots, you’re correct, since the presidential election is really the local election of electors in each state to the electoral college.

[Colonelbuzzsaw]

Every governor, every elected state official, every appointed law officer and public servant at the state level swears or affirms that they will uphold their state constitution and laws duly enacted AND the federal constitution and laws duly enacted.

The USSC issued a crappy ruling in the Arizona case, in that, it is a sworn duty of all law officers and state officials to enforce the law of this country. Last I read or heard, immigration laws are duly enacted and enforceable.

IMHO, both you and the SC are wrong.

[A Navy Vet]

" The USSC issued a crappy ruling in the Arizona case, in that, it is a sworn duty of all law officers and state officials to enforce the law of this country. Last I read or heard, immigration laws are duly enacted and enforceable. IMHO, both you and the SC are wrong."

That's why I said earlier it's a mixed bag on the AZ ruling.