"California Should Be Embarrassed" - State Passes Law Banning Trump From Ballot Unless Tax Returns Released
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 04:50
We're thrilled to see the far-left in America has the same respect for the Democratic process as their forebears did (for a reference to their forebears, see here).
On Tuesday, Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill requiring President Trump to either release his tax returns or he won't appear on the ballot in the state.
Calif Gov. Gavin Newsom
Under SB 27, called the "Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act," any candidate running for president or governor in California must file copies of their tax returns from the previous five years to the California secretary of State, or their names will be stricken from the ballot, the Hillhttps://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1156260201051410432? ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E115626020105141 0432%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews %2F2019-07-30%2Fcalifornia-should-be-embarrassed-state-passes-law- banning-trump-ballot-unless-tax
We imagine California won't be the last state to pass such a bill, but given Trump's deep unpopularity throughout most of the state, he was unlikely to win any delegates from California: Imagine what will happen when swing states like Colorado and New Hampshire start trying to pass these types of laws?
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
And finally....
#1: Cynicom To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Did not like it then nor now. Land of queers, homeless, druggies, pimps, whores, hustlers, winos, con men, sleaze bags, jews and a few humaans.
Scum then and now.
Cynicom posted on 2020-09-13 17:57:27 Reply Private Reply
#2: titorite To: BTP Holdings (#0)
titorite posted on 2020-09-13 18:16:37 Reply Private Reply
#3: BTP Holdings To: Cynicom (#1)
California is the land of fruits and nuts. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-09-13 18:26:44 Reply Private Reply
#4: Pinguinite To: BTP Holdings (#0)
But yes, a lawsuit will be filed and an injunction issued prohibiting the law from being enforced until litigation is complete well after the election, at which time the issue will be moot for Trump.
Pinguinite posted on 2020-09-13 18:34:26 Reply Private Reply
#5: BTP Holdings To: Pinguinite (#4)
I would say the Republicans are on it now. And they will directly file with the Supreme Court. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-09-13 18:38:40 Reply Private Reply
#6: Pinguinite To: BTP Holdings (#5)
I think proper procedure is to file in a lower federal court, and let it go from there. The lower court could find it unconstitutional, then the 9th court of appeals can over turn that decision THEN the USSC can reverse it again, if Roberts isn't feeling like going liberal again. By then it'll be summer of 2021 and it won't apply to Trump.
Pinguinite posted on 2020-09-13 18:42:23 Reply Private Reply
#7: BTP Holdings To: Pinguinite (#6)
I believe in certain cases filings can be made directly to the Supreme Court. I am not 100% certain of this, but it seems if this case concerns the upcoming election the Supremes would hear it immediately.
It will likely cost them $10,000 for the lawyers since those Supreme Court proceeding are very costly. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-09-13 19:08:48 Reply Private Reply
#8: BTP Holdings To: Pinguinite (#4)
The rules for write-in voting must cover the same ground as other candidates being placed on the ballot.
This means they must have ALL of the petitions they need to do the write-in vote.
This basically means you cannot write in Mickey Mouse for President since that write-in will not be counted. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-09-13 19:14:08 Reply Private Reply
#9: ghostdogtxn To: BTP Holdings (#0)
ghostdogtxn posted on 2020-09-13 22:43:29 Reply Private Reply
#10: NeoconsNailed To: BTP Holdings (#0)
NeoconsNailed posted on 2020-09-14 00:37:30 Reply Private Reply