Federal Judge Blocks California Trump-Harassment Law Which Demands His Tax Returns

They blocked on the basis of federal pre-emption.

Federal pre-emption is a doctrine that starts first from the very well-settled principle that federal law trumps state law.

In federal pre-emption, a court decides that the federal government's silence on a matter indicates that the federal government has decided against any additional laws in the area under consideration, and that lack of federal law also trumps state law.

The reasoning goes: If the federal government has so regulated a particular field, with the regulation being well-developed and touching on most matters in the field, then an inference can be drawn that they intended that federal exercise of jurisdication to be the exclusive law in this area, and that state laws which purport to merely "supplement" federal law or expand upon it will be struck down as being inconsistent with the federal scheme.

Obviously, there are a lot of federal laws and regulations in the area of elections and candidate qualifications.

On Twitter, @johnmyers reports that a federal judge has issued a temporary injunction against the Made For Trump "law" demanding Trump turn over his tax returns. The reasoning is, the federal government has promulgated lots and lots of laws and regulations in this area, and the fact that they did not additionally make tax returns a prerequisite for seeking federal office implies that they chose against that, and a state can't override that decision to not require tax returns.

States can do whatever they like with requirements for state office, but the federal government obviously has a lot to say about requirements in federal elections.

Breaking: a federal judge has temporarily blocked implementation of the California election law requiring Trump tax returns.

Story coming shortly, but in essence, Judge Morrison England, Jr. raised a number of Qs about whether federal financial disclosure rules, under the Ethics In Govt. Act (EIGA) supersedes any state law like #SB27

In other words, that the Ethics in Government Act pre-empts state lawmaking in this area.

I'm not a legal reporter, but hard to not see that Judge England had serious concerns that #SB27 could be pre-empted by federal Ethics In Govt. Act and language that it supersedes other financial disclosure requirements. EIGA forms are more broad in their info than tax returns.

That is, if the federal government wanted to demand tax returns, they could have done so easily. But they chose not to, asking for "broad" disclosures regarding finances but not the particularized run-down of a tax return.

An armada of lawyers were on hand to represent the five plaintiffs in Eastern Dist. cases against #SB27. Two representing President Trump, others representing voters and CAGOP. England didn't seem to buy all of their points, but EIGA was key issue.

I think we also get into Constitutional questions here. The Constitution specifies the qualifications for a candidate running for office -- and those qualifications do not include "has submitted his tax returns to California partisans to be leaked to the media." Courts use that particular objection to stamp out, for example, state laws that limit the number of terms federal office holders can serve -- if the Constitution doesn't impose such a restriction, how can a state pass a law requiring it?

But federal pre-emption will get you there too.

BTW: You might wonder why, if the Constitution forbids certain additional requirements on federal office seekers, why the Ethics in Government Act can stand and remain in operation. The answer is: Pff the top of my head, I don't really know.

I mean, most stuff in law has some kind of Goldilocks Rule (whatever it might be called in any situation) that says "This rule asks too much, but a different rule might be just right."

In other words, a kind of bullshit vague standard that lets the Court bless laws they like but not the ones they don't like. Federal law, and especially Constitutional law, is choked with "balancing tests" and "three-factor analytical frameworks."

They put a lot of effort into never offering a clear black-and-white yes-or-no rule. (Except for people like Clarence Thomas.)

I don't know what rule is in operation here but I would guess there are a series of cases that lay out what is effectively a Goldilocks Rule.

Also, Congress, a federal creature, is owed more deference in laws about the operation of the federal government than state legislatures.

Posted by: Ace of Spades at 05:36 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 firstivus?

Posted by: neverenoughcaffeine at September 19, 2019 05:38 PM (N3JsI)

2 Well this is literally a tax so Benedict Arnold Roberts will be aok with it.

Posted by: Lurking Lurker at September 19, 2019 05:38 PM (vUchS)

3 Bless his heart.

Posted by: Ass Chum at September 19, 2019 05:39 PM (Jj+59)

4 California and New York are the Democrats better hope for harassing Trump. Jerry Nads has failed utterly. And udder-ly, the fat fuck.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:39 PM (NVYyb)

5 I agree with you, Ace. I think the Constitutional argument against is better, since there's an existing Supreme Court ruling on exactly that topic. But, Federal Pre-emption works also, and gets you to the same place. Sometimes a law is so bad that there are a bunch of reasons to throw it out.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 05:41 PM (Kpl3J)

6 Oh Lawd. And the judge is a Black Dude.

Posted by: Miklos, smelling salts r' us at September 19, 2019 05:41 PM (QzkSJ)

7 And the translation and summary of this Legal Word Salad is.... A win for Trump???

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 05:41 PM (90T4r)

8 1
firstivus?

Posted by: neverenoughcaffeine at September 19, 2019 05:38 PM (N3JsI)

The achievement award for the rest of us.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (jYnPD)

9 Not to veer away from CA election controveries, but this Federal preemption has me curious. If Federal law/regulations trumps state law, would this argument also hold for 2A arguments?

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (N39Ws)

10 I wonder how Jim Sciutto will tweet this news out? He will need to wait until FusionGPS feeds him the words, and of course, Donuts Stelter will immediately retweet.

CNN in action!

Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (NVYyb)

11 State of Cal: "Ok Trump, I'll just be taking your tax returns, thank you very...
Fed Court: "Denied!"

Posted by: Boswell at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (32YRo)

12 Just out of curiosity, who appointed this judge?

Posted by: qdpsteve at September 19, 2019 05:43 PM (L2ZTs)

13 10 I wonder how Jim Sciutto will tweet this news out? He will need to wait until FusionGPS feeds him the words, and of course, Donuts Stelter will immediately retweet.

CNN in action!
Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (NVYyb)

Mmmm.... donuts....

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 05:43 PM (90T4r)

14 George W appointee.

Posted by: Lurking Lurker at September 19, 2019 05:43 PM (vUchS)

15 So judge is off the plantation... check..

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (90T4r)

16 So, what penalty should California pay for this overreach?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (oVJmc)

17 You're Trumped! Next case.

Posted by: x at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (nFwvY)

18 Doesn't really seem like a federal pre-emption case. Just a case of the Constitution is clear on the requirements for US president - in turn that means it is clear on what a state can demand for the ballot box from said candidate.

Maybe similar - but seems different to me.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (sX1BW)

19 Obviously the judge is a Russian agent.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (BRpqW)

20 Are there any depths to which Demofascist activists in California or NY government will not go? If Trump even fights back that is de facto proof of his guilty intent.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:45 PM (NVYyb)

21 Texas should make a law that says only gun owners can run for prezzie. Why the fuck not?

Posted by: Lurking Lurker at September 19, 2019 05:45 PM (vUchS)

22 Doesn't really seem like a federal pre-emption case. Just a case of the Constitution is clear on the requirements for US president - in turn that means it is clear on what a state can demand for the ballot box from said candidate.

Maybe similar - but seems different to me.
Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (sX1BW)

----------

I guess I should have read Ace's last paragraph. That seems to be the more germane argument.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 05:45 PM (sX1BW)

23 Obviously the judge is a Russian agent.
Posted by: Wonkish Rogue

Much worse. The Black Dude judge's middle name is Cohen.

Posted by: Miklos, conspiracymonger at September 19, 2019 05:45 PM (QzkSJ)

24 So, what penalty should California pay for this overreach?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles

High emission cars coming right up!

Posted by: Boswell at September 19, 2019 05:45 PM (32YRo)

25
6ix9ine alleges that Jim Jones and Cardi B are gang members
********
Only name I know of at all is Cardi B & that is because she is a RETARD

Posted by: Deep State is in Deep Shit at September 19, 2019 05:45 PM (BqBId)

26 The wins seem to be coming more often. It's nice for a change. I'm hoping that the doom and gloom spread incessantly by the progs and the media, I know redundant, is wearing thin.

Posted by: neverenoughcaffeine at September 19, 2019 05:46 PM (N3JsI)

27 Hold our white wine spritzers!

Posted by: Ninth Circuit at September 19, 2019 05:46 PM (H5knJ)

28

Is the Federal judge a Furry?

Posted by: Pippy Longstiffy at September 19, 2019 05:46 PM (KXR9+)

29 Cardi B is only slightly less retarded than Taylor Swift. By a Hair.

Posted by: Lurking Lurker at September 19, 2019 05:47 PM (vUchS)

30 Oh lort! Can California get any more stupid?

Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench) at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (myjNJ)

31
That's a baaaaa--aaaa--aaaaad ruling!

Posted by: Sheep Furry Beto at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (n8Jib)

32 But Orange has never been a protected color.

Posted by: DaveA at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (FhXTo)

33 Just a case of the Constitution is clear on the requirements for US president. As it clear is on the 2nd amendment, you know, that part that states, "...shall not be infringed."

Posted by: Archer at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (gmo/4)

34 Maybe similar - but seems different to me.
Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (sX1BW)

It is different - but what the Judge has pointed out is that there is extensive Federal Regulation covering financial disclosure in Federal Elections. When that is the case, then the States are bound to stick to the Federal Rules and can't add more rules of their own.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (Kpl3J)

35 >>I guess I should have read Ace's last paragraph. That seems to be the more germane argument.

I'm kind of surprised this silly case has gotten this far. The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue.

There. Are. Three. Requirements.

And none of them have anything to do with the nominee's taxes.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (ZLI7S)

36 But Orange has never been a protected color.
Posted by: DaveA at September 19, 2019 05:48 PM (FhXTo)
-----
Hah!

Posted by: William of Orange at September 19, 2019 05:49 PM (iB1oa)

37 So, what penalty should California pay for this overreach?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (oVJmc)
........

One beellion pesos!

Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 05:49 PM (v0R5T)

38 Sell California to Mexico for one peso and build a wall along its border. So glad to be out of that s*** hole ...

Posted by: ShainS -- Appeasement is a Blessing of Liberty! at September 19, 2019 05:49 PM (uMT2x)

39 Judge's ruling: LOLGF

Posted by: Stu Podaso at September 19, 2019 05:49 PM (tv8Yi)

40 Emerson College poll has Kamala running behind the Yang Yacht in California.

California.

She may as well quit now.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM (NVYyb)

41 The NY AG also wants years of Trump's tax returns for five years or so, I think ... just for their perusal I guess.

Posted by: illiniwek at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM (Cus5s)

42 If you really want a State's Rights knot, have one State pass a Law that makes Keeping Tax Info Confidential an Option for Candidates.

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM (33klh)

43 Anyone not blind enough could see this coming yet the Leftists of California did it anyway.

Posted by: Skip at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM (ZCEU2)

44 Trump Stumps Humps from Dump

Posted by: suck me Variety at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM (nFwvY)

45 Make that three scoops.

Posted by: Eromero at September 19, 2019 05:51 PM (UUkQp)

46 Just a case of the Constitution is clear on the requirements for US president. As it clear is on the 2nd amendment, you know, that part that states, "...shall not be infringed."

Posted by: Archer

I think they thought since they were only making this a requirement to be in a primary in their state, they'd get around that troublesome constitutional issue - guess the Feds didn't see it that way - looked like they were putting up road blocks to becoming President not contemplated by the founders afterall.

Posted by: Boswell at September 19, 2019 05:51 PM (32YRo)

47 Anyone not blind enough could see this coming yet the Leftists of California did it anyway.

Childish defiance.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:52 PM (oVJmc)

48 Emerson College poll has Kamala running behind the Yang Yacht in California.

California.

She may as well quit now.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM (NVYyb)
..........

No, I want to see a bidding war.

I'll give everyone $1000 a month!

Oh yeah? I'll give everyone $2000 a month!

...and so on...

Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 05:52 PM (v0R5T)

49 How much longer? How much longer do we have to tolerate the cesspool of depravity and lawlessness known as California? When will some common sense be applied and that stain be returned to territorial status?

Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench) at September 19, 2019 05:53 PM (myjNJ)

50 9 Not to veer away from CA election controveries, but this Federal preemption has me curious. If Federal law/regulations trumps state law, would this argument also hold for 2A arguments?
Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (N39Ws)

It's a good question, and it's tricky, since the Supreme Court decisions have held that States have the authority to issue some regulations on the matter. And Congress has never stepped out and laid out a detailed regulatory scheme for guns like they have for Financial Disclosure. That regulatory scheme is one of the requirements for Pre-emption to apply.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 05:53 PM (Kpl3J)

51 , what penalty should California pay for this overreach?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:44 PM (oVJmc)
........

One beellion pesos!
Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 05:49 PM (v0R5T)

Got change for a $10?

Posted by: California at September 19, 2019 05:54 PM (pcjWt)

52 When will the state-level national popular vote laws be addressed - these are being challenged, right?

Posted by: Lizzy at September 19, 2019 05:54 PM (bDqIh)

53 It's a good question, and it's tricky, since the Supreme Court decisions have held that States have the authority to issue some regulations on the matter. And Congress has never stepped out and laid out a detailed regulatory scheme for guns like they have for Financial Disclosure. That regulatory scheme is one of the requirements for Pre-emption to apply

------------

Federal preemption is a shaking judge-made Constitutional law.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 05:54 PM (sX1BW)

54 49 How much longer? How much longer do we have to tolerate the cesspool of depravity and lawlessness known as California? When will some common sense be applied and that stain be returned to territorial status?
Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench) at September 19, 2019 05:53 PM (myjNJ)

When the missiles fly, and not before. That's when.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 05:54 PM (Kpl3J)

55 Oh yeah? I'll give everyone $2000 a month!

...and so on...
Posted by: wth

I'll let you keep $1000 a month. Tops.

Posted by: Bernie! at September 19, 2019 05:54 PM (QzkSJ)

56 How much longer? How much longer do we have to tolerate the cesspool of depravity and lawlessness known as California? When will some common sense be applied and that stain be returned to territorial status?

Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench)

----

Give it the fuck back to Mexico.

Hollywood.

Disney.

Frisco.

The whole depraved thing.

Posted by: RKae at September 19, 2019 05:55 PM (LTccB)

57 We're feeling very furry.

Posted by: California at September 19, 2019 05:56 PM (EgshT)

58 In other words, a kind of bullshit vague standard that lets the Court bless laws they like but not the ones they don't like. Federal law, and especially Constitutional law, is choked with "balancing tests" and "three-factor analytical frameworks."

Let us not forget Geometrical logic.

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 05:56 PM (lD3vL)

59 We may look back on this as the moment when the tide turned.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at September 19, 2019 05:56 PM (Xw/fc)

60 "Federal preemption is a shaking judge-made Constitutional law."

Not really; it comes from Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 05:56 PM (Kpl3J)

61 Clearly Robin Pogrebrin needs to get the goods on this Judge England person. Calling all hippocampuses (hippocampi?)...

Posted by: Hands at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (786Ro)

62 Oh Lawd. And the judge is a Black Dude.

Posted by: Miklos, smelling salts r' us at September 19, 2019 05:41 PM
(QzkSJ)

___________

He will be formerly black or a white negro after this -- a UoU, an Unperson of Uncolor.

Posted by: ShainS -- Appeasement is a Blessing of Liberty! at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (uMT2x)

63 I wonder if the "candidate cannot be named Trump" law would pass Hawaii judge muster.

Posted by: illiniwek at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (Cus5s)

64 59 We may look back on this as the moment when the tide turned.

Losing the ability of Hawaiian judges to make nationwide injunctions is a kick in the Left's tiny little nads.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (oVJmc)

65 Actually, Calif was not trying to override Federal Law, but he US Constitution itself.

It explicitly lays down the requirements for the Office of the Presidency, and Tax Returns are, strangely, not there.

Posted by: Don Q at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (NgKpN)

66 Ryan Saavedra
@RealSaavedra

Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.
Video-
https://tinyurl.com/y5rdm7rx

These people worship the god of global warming.

Posted by: redridinghood at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (wiXsO)

67 It's a good question, and it's tricky, since the Supreme Court decisions have held that States have the authority to issue some regulations on the matter.

Because the phrase "shall not be infringed" means that every jurisdiction can have a free-for-all on infringements.

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (lD3vL)

68 If I was judge, I'd go with the "improper motive" analysis that California and Hawaii judges like to apply to Trump's immigration-related executive orders. Which works out to: "I don't like it, so you can't do it." No need then to get in to the nitty gritty of whether or not its technically lawful. Simplifies the decision making process tremendously.

Posted by: Frankovich's Monster at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (hdzef)

69 you say you've got a con sti tu tion
well el you know a oh
we all doin what we can

but if you give money to people
with minds that hate
well all I can tell you is
brother you have to wait.

well you know it's going to be
alright
you know it's going to be
alright

Posted by: Kelly Tyre at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (Lfufs)

70 US V Dewitt let Michigan stop the sell of petroleum distillates and was found to be constitutional.

1869

Posted by: rhennigantx at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (JFO2v)

71 Pictures I've seen of Cardi B tells me her butt needs some Cardi O.

Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (v0R5T)

72 >>Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

If only we had a Plan to limit people to 1 Child...

that would be a Great Leap Forward for us.

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (33klh)

73 We love California! We're going there with flowers in our short hairs! *hic*

Posted by: Wine Moms at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (EgshT)

74 It is very wrong to even think about smiling while pondering a few NorK missiles (non nuke ) hitting Sacramento, los Angeles, or San Francisco. Very wrong! So don't do that.

Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench) at September 19, 2019 05:58 PM (myjNJ)

75 Kamala Harris possesses an aura of extreme virulence... I think the power brokers know they can't market her well.... Hillary lost because of her malice and bile.... I don't know who the nominee will be. Perhaps the Deep Staters will write this election off. In that case, don't waste a viable 2024 candidate.

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 05:59 PM (90T4r)

76 "Federal preemption is a shaking judge-made Constitutional law."

Not really; it comes from Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

--------------

Not sure how the preemption clause bears on judge made federal preemption law.

State has plenary power except in areas the Constitution forbids and where the Constitution clearly gives federal government sole authority (which is quite narrow). Preemption law is primarily commerce clause jurisprudence. The Court has completely shit that bed.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 05:59 PM (sX1BW)

77 what penalty should California pay for this overreach?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:44 P

One miiilllion pancakes

Posted by: Hands at September 19, 2019 05:59 PM (786Ro)

78 Give it the fuck back to Mexico.

Hollywood.

Disney.

Frisco.

The whole depraved thing.
Posted by: RKae at September 19, 2019 05:55 PM (LTccB)

Central Valley Calif. We're already part of Mexico apparently.

At least by the amount of Spanish I hear spoken in public here.

Posted by: Don Q at September 19, 2019 05:59 PM (NgKpN)

79 Not sure how the preemption clause bears on judge made federal preemption law.

State has plenary power except in areas the Constitution forbids and where the Constitution clearly gives federal government sole authority (which is quite narrow). Preemption law is primarily commerce clause jurisprudence. The Court has completely shit that bed.

-----------

Dammit - I meant the supremacy clause ....

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:00 PM (sX1BW)

80 They put a lot of effort into never offering a clear black-and-white yes-or-no rule. (Except for people like Clarence Thomas.)

Heaven forfend the people who actually labor beneath the law understand it clearly. The Legal Ephors must always and in every instance be consulted (for a slight phenomenal fee, naturally) because billable hours, baby.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #PurgeProgressivism at September 19, 2019 06:00 PM (HaL55)

81 64 59 We may look back on this as the moment when the tide turned.

Losing the ability of Hawaiian judges to make nationwide injunctions is a kick in the Left's tiny little nads.
Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (oVJmc)

Look for Trump on the fifth day.... look to the East....

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:00 PM (90T4r)

82 President Trump loves it--these drooling imbeciles are revealing themselves as proto-fascists while casting the president as the under-dog, and Americans love an underdog.

At least Beto thinks so.

The only interesting legal question is when will all these Bills of Attainder be considered for what they really are: a criminal conspiracy to deprive the People of their right to self-government?

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (Ndje9)

83
It explicitly lays down the requirements for the Office of the Presidency, and Tax Returns are, strangely, not there.

It wasn't until the 16th Amendment, when the Republic was legislative destroyed that there was a concept of "tax returns".

Prior to the 16th Amendment, We the People had a Government. Since the 16th Amendment, the Government has chattel.

There are no restrictions on the 16th, which essentially says that if the Fe'ral Government thought they could get away with it, they have the Constitutional authority to confiscate all wealth and income.

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (lD3vL)

84
Let's see.

1. The IRS, no friend of Trump, has had ample
opportunity to review Trump's enormous and complicated tax returns. The are worked out each year in a months long process involving Trump's accountants and lawyers, and IRS accountants and lawyers. It's like an annual audit. If there were anything illegal it would have been discovered and referred.

2. Democrats lust after the tax returns.

3. Democrats are amoral, slanderous, harassing pieces of shit.

They want the returns for harassment of Trump
associates, and companies who do business with him, any charities he donates to, etc. They want to willfully misinterpret and misrepresent what has already been vetted thoroughly by the IRS. It's all bullshit, and denying them the returns is the only sensible course.

Posted by: Right Honorable Justice Sotomayer, Pillar of Justice and Dignity at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (hGuWq)

85 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

Uh...in like Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, and China?

Cause that seems racist.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (Xw/fc)

86 I met Judge England a few times way back when when we were both JAG officers in the Army Reserve (1998-2000). He was a state Superior Court judge back then. He's no nonsense so this ruling is a welcome par-for-the-course with him. Really good guy, well-liked and respected. He should be on the 9th Circuit. By the way, pretty good explanation of field preemption. I was impressed.

Posted by: SFGoth at September 19, 2019 06:02 PM (KAi1n)

87 66 Ryan Saavedra
@RealSaavedra

Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.
Video-
https://tinyurl.com/y5rdm7rx

These people worship the god of global warming.

Posted by: redridinghood at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (wiXsO)

Hmmm, seeing as how the US would be at Zero Population growth if NOT for immigration?

It seems he would then be for closing the border.

Posted by: Don Q at September 19, 2019 06:02 PM (NgKpN)

88 >>They want the returns for harassment of Trump
associates, and companies who do business with him, any charities he donates to, etc. They want to willfully misinterpret and misrepresent what has already been vetted thoroughly by the IRS. It's all bullshit, and denying them the returns is the only sensible course.

Time to RICO the Democrat national Comittee?

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2019 06:02 PM (33klh)

89 85 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

Uh...in like Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, and China?

Cause that seems racist.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (Xw/fc)

I hope they put that in their Platform next year.

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:02 PM (90T4r)

90 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.
Video-
https://tinyurl.com/y5rdm7rx

These people worship the god of global warming.

Posted by: redridinghood at September 19, 2019 05:57 PM (wiXsO)

Who would want the Democrats to be responsible for anything? Who could Listen to those dimwitted lunatics and trust them to wash your rattiest underwear?

Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:03 PM (eAMlh)

91
Alternate post title:

And These Cocksuckers Have The Balls To Complain About "Voter Suppression"

Posted by: Soothsayer, very senile at September 19, 2019 06:03 PM (/Sqx5)

92 >>There are no restrictions on the 16th

...or the 19th.

They let women with 'A' Cups Vote!?

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2019 06:03 PM (33klh)

93 Progtards slapped down by the court again.

Will they ever learn?

Nah, they'll never learn.

Posted by: I'm Tucker Carlson and I will destroy you at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (OSN5N)

94 If Federal law/regulations trumps state law, would this argument also hold for 2A arguments?

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (N39Ws)

But federal law already regulates the 2nd Amendment. Gun Control Act of 1968, 1986, etc. So that argument won't fly.

Of course the only argument that is meaningful is that the 2nd Amendment is clear as day, except for retards and Democrats.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (wYseH)

95 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

So much for keeping the government out your bedroom, no?

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (jYnPD)

96 15
So judge is off the plantation... check.
Nope. The Dems would just say he's a house ______.

Posted by: Dad of Six at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (VILFc)

97 Federal financial disclosure rules are also Unconstitutional.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (sX1BW)

98 ...and Women with 'D' Cups only get to Vote once.

Makes no sense to me.

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2019 06:05 PM (33klh)

99 BTW: You might wonder why, if the Constitution forbids certain additional requirements on federal office seekers, why the Ethics in Government Act can stand and remain in operation. The answer is: Pff the top of my head, I don't really know.

I mean, most stuff in law has some kind of Goldilocks Rule (whatever it might be called in any situation) that says "This rule asks too much, but a different rule might be just right."

In other words, a kind of bullshit vague standard that lets the Court bless laws they like but not the ones they don't like. Federal law, and especially Constitutional law, is choked with "balancing tests" and "three-factor analytical frameworks."

It's a good point - a lot of it comes simply from practicality. Even though the Constitution has only a few requirements to run for President, practically speaking there *have* to be more, because what if 9 million people who all met the Constitutional Requirements all wanted to be on the ballot?

Well that can't happen, and so Congress is the group that's empowered to sit down and write the laws that actually detail how things are going to be run on a day to day basis - like how Elections are going to be carried out, specifically.

And now we're back to the pre-emption argument, which put most simply says that when Congress has sat down and done that, then the States need to just shut up and do what they're told. Note that if Congress wanted to see everyone's tax returns, then it would be fine for Congress to pass that law - of course the President would have to sign it.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 06:05 PM (Kpl3J)

100 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning"

So much for a woman's right to choose.

Posted by: boulder t'hobo at September 19, 2019 06:05 PM (ykYG2)

101 Tim Ryan, with tears running down his face, will personally break the neck of any excess family members.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at September 19, 2019 06:05 PM (TWfOY)

102

The same cocksuckers who fake outrage over fake voter suppression want to disenfranchise tens of million of voters by nullifying their state's results and giving their Electoral Votes to the popular vote "winner."

Posted by: Soothsayer, very senile at September 19, 2019 06:05 PM (/Sqx5)

103 "43
Anyone not blind enough could see this coming yet the Leftists of California did it anyway"
Of course they did. Democrats know all about Failure Theater.

Posted by: GalosGann at September 19, 2019 06:05 PM (z6Rh+)

104 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

So much for keeping the government out your bedroom, no?
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (jYnPD

Half the male population will be legally required to be gay. To be selected by lot.

Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:06 PM (eAMlh)

105 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

Chairman Mao believed the same thing too.

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 06:07 PM (lD3vL)

106 Half the male population will be legally required to be gay. To be selected by lot.

Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:06 PM (eAMlh)

I volunteer Rainmando as tribute.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:07 PM (jYnPD)

107 Goldilocks was a Russian Honeypot Double Agent!

*hic* *shart* *cackle*

Posted by: Hillary at September 19, 2019 06:07 PM (2Mnv1)

108 Federal financial disclosure rules are also Unconstitutional.
Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM

What? What?

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at September 19, 2019 06:07 PM (786Ro)

109 The Democrats hate the human race.

Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (eAMlh)

110 Well that can't happen, and so Congress is the group that's empowered to sit down and write the laws that actually detail how things are going to be run on a day to day basis - like how Elections are going to be carried out, specifically.

---------------

Where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to write laws on how to run elections? This was traditionally left to the states. But what the state cannot do is impose additional qualifications or do other things that the Constitution forbids (e.g., a poll tax).

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (sX1BW)

111 The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Or a Russ Meyer film.

Posted by: Zombie Roger Ebert at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (786Ro)

112 I would like to express a few words that even autocratic dems can understand, on Donald Trump's behalf.

Nya na na ya nya.

Posted by: Kelly Tyre at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (Lfufs)

113 109
The Democrats hate the human race.

Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (eAMlh)

CO2, which we exhale, is a pollutant. No kidding.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (jYnPD)

114 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

And the same libs that think this is a wonderful idea also run around chanting "Keep the government out of my vagina".

Posted by: Bert G at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (OMsf+)

115 Note that if Congress wanted to see everyone's tax returns, then it would be fine for Congress to pass that law - of course the President would have to sign it.

On his way out the door after eight years...

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (lD3vL)

116 85 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

Uh...in like Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, and China?

Cause that seems racist.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (Xw/fc)

---

In Africa, Pakistan etc., many of the natives already, especially Muslims, already believe there are secret Western conspiracies to sterilize the men. Polio vaccination teams e.g. have been murdered for this reason.

I don't think any attempt to limit fertility would go over too well.

Actually, if you want to reduce their populations, just leave them to their own devices. Plenty of pregnancies, not too many survivors.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at September 19, 2019 06:10 PM (t5m5e)

117 Note that if Congress wanted to see everyone's tax returns, then it would be fine for Congress to pass that law - of course the President would have to sign it.

--------------

Seems to be more to it than just passing a law. But an interesting question. Would argue that the 16th A does not permit this.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:10 PM (sX1BW)

118 The Constitution is not a suicide pact...

Which is just enough weasel language to override everything in the Constitution to avoid a metaphorical suicide.

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 06:11 PM (lD3vL)

119 56 How much longer? How much longer do we have to tolerate the cesspool of depravity and lawlessness known as California? When will some common sense be applied and that stain be returned to territorial status?

Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench)

----

Give it the fuck back to Mexico.

Hollywood.

Disney.

Frisco.

The whole depraved thing.

Excuse me for a few minutes, I have to go out on the sidewalk and take a dump.

Posted by: 100,000 people on the street in California cities at September 19, 2019 06:11 PM (sy5kK)

120 Legal Ace is a legal ace!

Posted by: Farmer Bob at September 19, 2019 06:11 PM (87EdW)

121
Yeah, sarcastic lawyer Ace is best Ace.

Posted by: Soothsayer, very senile at September 19, 2019 06:12 PM (ZvFuy)

122 Note that if Congress wanted to see everyone's tax returns, then it would be fine for Congress to pass that law - of course the President would have to sign it.

I'm seeing a Fourth Amendment problem here.

Posted by: ʎoſ ƃuᴉ,Ⅎ ɟo pɹᴉq ǝnlq at September 19, 2019 06:12 PM (lD3vL)

123 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.

So much for keeping the government out your bedroom, no?
Posted by: flounder,

You mean all the fun with none of the fatherhood risks?

Posted by: Gen. Buck Turgidson at September 19, 2019 06:13 PM (FTlwv)

124 Ima wonder if ace likes tort(e) s.

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:13 PM (90T4r)

125 87 66 Ryan Saavedra
@RealSaavedra

Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning" to stop over population.
Video-
https://tinyurl.com/y5rdm7rx
------------

This makes a lot of sense. I have some ideas how to do it.

Posted by: Margret Sanger at September 19, 2019 06:14 PM (sy5kK)

126 Ultimately nothing in Amendment XVI overturns Amendment IV. Meaning that Trump would have an easy Constitutional argument against any disclosure of his personal affairs not directly related to assessing his income tax burden.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 19, 2019 06:14 PM (zYSnw)

127 Excuse me for a few minutes, I have to go out on the sidewalk and take a dump.

Posted by: 100,000 people on the street in California cities at September 19, 2019 06:11 PM (sy5kK)
.........

Might as well shoot up while you're out there.

Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 06:15 PM (v0R5T)

128 94
If Federal law/regulations trumps state law, would this argument also hold for 2A arguments?

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at September 19, 2019 05:42 PM (N39Ws)

But federal law already regulates the 2nd Amendment. Gun Control Act of 1968, 1986, etc. So that argument won't fly.

Of course the only argument that is meaningful is that the 2nd Amendment is clear as day, except for retards and Democrats.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 19, 2019 06:04 PM (wYseH)
Actually, NH, NJ, and MA can harass a gun owner who is legally -following FOPA in transporting a firearm across state lines. As can happen in an airport.

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at September 19, 2019 06:15 PM (N39Ws)

129 Hmmm, SJW critics seem to hate the new Rambo movie.

May have to break my movie boycott and go see it.

Posted by: Don Q at September 19, 2019 06:15 PM (NgKpN)

130 When will a Democrat say faith is too powerful to leave it to churches and insist government must take over faith issues?

Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:15 PM (eAMlh)

131 Might as well shoot up while you're out there.

Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 06:15 PM

That's what the Starbuck's restroom is for.

Posted by: Bert G at September 19, 2019 06:16 PM (OMsf+)

132 Where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to write laws on how to run elections?

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (sX1BW)

Nowhere. The Federal Government conducts no elections per the Constitution. It only counts the Electoral Votes - the elections for Electors are run by the States. I expect there are some Federal Laws controlling elections, like the election date for Federal offices, and some Civil Rights-related items.

Posted by: Gref at September 19, 2019 06:17 PM (AMIL/)

133 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning"

the spaying and neutering plank

Posted by: x at September 19, 2019 06:17 PM (nFwvY)

134 130 When will a Democrat say faith is too powerful to leave it to churches and insist government must take over faith issues?
Posted by: Northernlurker at September 19, 2019 06:15 PM (eAMlh)

Yeah, we need a State Religion!! What would the Progs have us worship???

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:17 PM (90T4r)

135 Where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to write laws on how to run elections? This was traditionally left to the states. But what the state cannot do is impose additional qualifications or do other things that the Constitution forbids (e.g., a poll tax).
Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (sX1BW)

It's a good point - before the Civil War, there was none. Then came the 14th Amendment, which essentially rewrote much of the Constitution all by itself. Section 1 talks of Citizenship, and Equal Protection, and Due Process; Section 2 of that amendment is about Federal Elections, and Federal Oversight; and then comes Section 5, a single line which gave Congress vastly more power than it ever had before, and which is used to justify the entire 20th century expansion of the Fed Govm't:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

notice that once that power was granted, there were essentially no more limits on what Congress could do., except for some Judge to rule on what "appropriate" meant. If you want to pick a starting point for where it all went goofy, this is when.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 06:18 PM (Kpl3J)

136 If not already mentioned, a copy/paste of the upside-down nic fails to post -- causes a pixy error.

Not to mention gives me eye strain. ;-)

Posted by: ShainS -- Appeasement is a Blessing of Liberty! at September 19, 2019 06:18 PM (uMT2x)

137 Where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to write laws on how to run elections?

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (sX1BW)

Nowhere.

---------

My point. Traditionally, and at the time of ratification, states ran their own elections, and they should continue to do so, provided they do not do something they are prohibited from doing (e.g., a poll tax). But a state is free to require an id to participate in voting.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:18 PM (sX1BW)

138 It's a good point - before the Civil War, there was none. Then came the 14th Amendment, which essentially rewrote much of the Constitution all by itself. Section 1 talks of Citizenship, and Equal Protection, and Due Process; Section 2 of that amendment is about Federal Elections, and Federal Oversight; and then comes Section 5, a single line which gave Congress vastly more power than it ever had before, and which is used to justify the entire 20th century expansion of the Fed Govm't:

--------------

Substantive due process is by far the bigger problem than judicial review.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:19 PM (sX1BW)

139 just to be clear, I know that States "run" elections. But Federal Rules now govern all the important aspects. States get to decide things like if there will be early voting, and who gets to be election monitors.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 06:20 PM (Kpl3J)

140 Yeah, we need a State Religion!! What would the Progs have us worship???

Them. And I don't mean the horror flick from the '50's. But worshiping a cheesy/funny movie would be better.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #PurgeProgressivism at September 19, 2019 06:20 PM (HaL55)

141 Emerson College poll has Kamala running behind the Yang Yacht in California.

California.

She may as well quit now.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at September 19, 2019 05:50 PM

---

Nope, she is going to stay in as long as she possibly can. Those sweet campaign $$$ are calling her.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at September 19, 2019 06:21 PM (JUOKG)

142 24
So, what penalty should California pay for this overreach?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles

High emission cars coming right up!

need a big forge so i can start stamping out aircooled beetles in my back yard.

Posted by: Anachronda at September 19, 2019 06:21 PM (sGtp+)

143 My point. Traditionally, and at the time of ratification, states ran their own elections, and they should continue to do so, provided they do not do something they are prohibited from doing (e.g., a poll tax). But a state is free to require an id to participate in voting.
Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:18 PM (sX1BW)

I agree with you completely, and I'm sure you know that Texas has been going round and round against the Democrats in the 5th Circuit on this point.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 06:21 PM (Kpl3J)

144 My point. Traditionally, and at the time of ratification, states ran their own elections, and they should continue to do so, provided they do not do something they are prohibited from doing (e.g., a poll tax). But a state is free to require an id to participate in voting.

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:18 PM (sX1BW)

The Tenth Amendment sends election control for every Federal, State, and Local office to the States, because those things are "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..."

Posted by: Gref at September 19, 2019 06:22 PM (AMIL/)

145 119 56 How much longer? How much longer do we have to tolerate the cesspool of depravity and lawlessness known as California? When will some common sense be applied and that stain be returned to territorial status?

Posted by: madamemayhem (uppity wench)

Ha ha, you too funny wench.
Your president he try to kill us
He want to cut our water off
He want us to breath cattle exhaust
He want to fire our judges
He want to cut our bushes

He no give us more money
We need more money
He make us eat shit from sidewalk

He mean.

You tell him go away
You tell him give us money
and water too.

Posted by: Cali Chinaman at September 19, 2019 06:22 PM (3DbHL)

146 Substantive due process is by far the bigger problem than judicial review.
Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:19 PM (sX1BW)

Another point I agree on. Ask any law professor what "substantive due process" is and if they're honest, they'll say "that thing that gets referenced any time a Federal Judge wants to do something and he can't explain why".

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 06:23 PM (Kpl3J)

147 Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning"

Good, start with members of Congress.

Posted by: dantesed at September 19, 2019 06:24 PM (88xKn)

148 Posted by: Cali Chinaman at September 19, 2019 06:22 PM (3DbHL)
-----
The chinaman is not the issue here!

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at September 19, 2019 06:25 PM (iB1oa)

149 113
CO2, which we exhale, is a pollutant. No kidding.
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (jYnPD)

And which plants need, to thrive.
Take that, vegans!

Posted by: Flyover's newest and improved nic at September 19, 2019 06:25 PM (B5K06)

150 So every time I exhale, I feed a plant??

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

151 So every time I exhale, I feed a plant??
=====

Please....no more....

Posted by: The Ficus at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (JcXHH)

152 What does my methane feed, I wonder??

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

153
Posted by: Right Honorable Justice Sotomayer, Pillar of Justice and Dignity at September 19, 2019 06:01 PM (hGuWq)

________

Excellent point. Justice Thomas, is that you in brownface?

Posted by: ShainS -- Appeasement is a Blessing of Liberty! at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (9DzlB)

154 150
So every time I exhale, I feed a plant??

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

Yes, and "pollute" the planet, according to the AGW whackos.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:27 PM (jYnPD)

155 The Kav confirmation he said that his daughter said that we should pray for her the sanctimonious liar. That did not sit well with me. That kindness will guarantee the tactic will be used in the future.

Pray that she goes to jail.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at September 19, 2019 06:27 PM (TWfOY)

156 150 So every time I exhale, I feed a plant??
Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

Yes!
Cattle food!
Pig food!
Deer food!
Rabbit food!

Posted by: Flyover's newest and improved nic at September 19, 2019 06:27 PM (B5K06)

157 After the debacle with Lewandowski at the Judiciary hearing you probably thought it couldn't get worse for Fat Nadler. You would be wrong.

He had a hearing today on police brutality and he decided it would be a super good idea to invite Reverend Al to sermonize. Very bad idea.

Matt Gaetz spent his time and Jim Jordan's time reading Sharpton racist quotes Sharpton has uttered over the years. The Dems on the committee jumped in repeatedly to try and save Sharpton but it did help much.

Here's a taste.

https://bit.ly/2kvFGLm

Posted by: JackStraw at September 19, 2019 06:28 PM (ZLI7S)

158

Yeah, we need a State Religion!! What would the Progs have us worship???

SCIENCE!!

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at September 19, 2019 06:28 PM (aKsyK)

159 Another point I agree on. Ask any law professor what "substantive due
process" is and if they're honest, they'll say "that thing that gets
referenced any time a Federal Judge wants to do something and he can't
explain why".

And we mere mortals are left only to ponder the Ephor's cryptic meanings, for they alone possess the power to be truly free. We deplorables down here just can't comprehend such things.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #PurgeProgressivism at September 19, 2019 06:28 PM (HaL55)

160 152 What does my methane feed, I wonder??
Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

I gotta get it from somewhere.

Posted by: Jupiter at September 19, 2019 06:28 PM (B5K06)

161 137 Where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to write laws on how to run elections?

Posted by: SH at September 19, 2019 06:08 PM (sX1BW)

Sort of depends on what Congress wants to do, but there's lots of routes to finding such a power.

Voting Rights Act? 15th Amendment probably sufficient, chuck in the 14th if you like.

Congress wants to forbid Utah from running rigged elections designed to establish a Theocracy, then check the Guaranty Clause.

And what can't the Commerce Clause due when "necessary"? Probably not tell a state how to run an election, but never say never.

Posted by: Frankovich's Monster at September 19, 2019 06:29 PM (hdzef)

162 Yes!
Cattle food!
Pig food!
Deer food!
Rabbit food!
Posted by: Flyover's newest and improved nic at September 19, 2019 06:27 PM (B5K06)
-----
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season! Fire!
*BOOM!*

Posted by: Captain Obvious at September 19, 2019 06:29 PM (iB1oa)

163 I mean, most stuff in law has some kind of Goldilocks Rule (whatever it might be called in any situation) that says "This rule asks too much, but a different rule might be just right."

In other words, a kind of bullshit vague standard that lets the Court bless laws they like but not the ones they don't like. Federal law, and especially Constitutional law, is choked with "balancing tests" and "three-factor analytical frameworks."

====

This is similar to the vague and unconstitutional language of campaign finance laws saying things like "any action" must be reported. Well, obviously "any action" is stupidly overbroad and CFL's don't mean anything but stuff actually done like gas for buses, ads, and bumperstickers.

Posted by: mushroom maniac at September 19, 2019 06:30 PM (thQkh)

164 Nice to know that I've been a lifelong Friend to Nature.... maybe that buys me some points with that Gaia chick...

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:30 PM (90T4r)

165 *BOOM!*
Posted by: Captain Obvious at September 19, 2019 06:29 PM (iB1oa)

"Kill da wabbit, kill the wabbit..."

Posted by: Elmer F. at September 19, 2019 06:31 PM (B5K06)

166 The Matt Gaetz video linked above is worth watching.

Posted by: shibumi, in house selling hell because of GM at September 19, 2019 06:31 PM (gdfZ0)

167 150 So every time I exhale, I feed a plant??
Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

-------------

And a leprechaun gets his wings

Posted by: Michael Bay at September 19, 2019 06:31 PM (KZBSl)

168 152 What does my methane feed, I wonder??

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:26 PM (90T4r)

Some microbes.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:32 PM (jYnPD)

169 this is a good first step, by the way. Trump is going to be harassed by leftwing states for the rest of his life and his kids for their lives.

The GOP has seen fit to not fight on basically area of democrat harassment. But maybe the new trump judge army (TJA) will tamp this shit down.

I mean, we saw John Doe in Wisconsin, John Doe II with Weissmann and his hand puppet, and we'll see John Doe SWATs III-infinity unless someone steps in and punishes leftwing bad behavior.

sigh.

Posted by: mushroom maniac at September 19, 2019 06:32 PM (thQkh)

170 The Associated Press @AP
1h
BREAKING: A federal judge has sided with the Trump campaign's request to halt a new California law that would require presidential candidates to release their tax returns
*******
OIC The Judge sided with Trump, Not law & constitution

Posted by: Deep State is in Deep Shit at September 19, 2019 06:32 PM (BqBId)

171 91
Alternate post title:

And These Cocksuckers Have The Balls To Complain About "Voter Suppression"

Posted by: Soothsayer, very senile at September 19, 2019 06:03 PM (/Sqx5)

___________

Bears repeating ...

Posted by: ShainS -- Appeasement is a Blessing of Liberty! at September 19, 2019 06:32 PM (9DzlB)

172 so is this post evidence of why ace gets invited to all sorts of swell get-togethers with lawmakers and i don't?

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at September 19, 2019 06:33 PM (Pg+x7)

173 So really, we are all in a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth...

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:33 PM (90T4r)

174 and don't the democrats seem sillier than usual?

They're seemingly down to:

1. um maybe trump tax bad?

2. The Penguin's sad obstruction gambit

3. maybe there's a leftwing activist who grew up in Trump's neighborhood around the time he was a teen to early 20's that had a second front door installed?

Posted by: mushroom maniac at September 19, 2019 06:33 PM (thQkh)

175 But wait. There's more!

https://bit.ly/2kv9CXY

Posted by: JackStraw at September 19, 2019 06:34 PM (ZLI7S)

176 I often forget that ace is a lawyer, until he busts out a post like this one....

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:34 PM (90T4r)

177 Matt Gaetz spent his time and Jim Jordan's time reading Sharpton racist quotes Sharpton has uttered over the years. The Dems on the committee jumped in repeatedly to try and save Sharpton but it did help much.

====

I don't know if I can handle this new nascent breed of republicans who fucking fight. boiiiing.

Posted by: mushroom maniac at September 19, 2019 06:34 PM (thQkh)

178 The chinaman is not the issue here!

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at September 19, 2019 06:25 PM (iB1oa)

You go
You go home
You go home now
and take your president with you.

You leave money first
then go

Posted by: Cali Chinaman at September 19, 2019 06:36 PM (3DbHL)

179 173
So really, we are all in a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth...

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:33 PM (90T4r)

That's kind of a hippy dippy way of saying it that I wouldn't choose, but yeah, it's more complicated than just CO2 bad, hoomons bad.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:36 PM (jYnPD)

180 Matt Gaetz spent his time and Jim Jordan's time reading Sharpton racist quotes Sharpton has uttered over the years. The Dems on the committee jumped in repeatedly to try and save Sharpton but it did help much.

Here's a taste.

https://bit.ly/2kvFGLm
Posted by: JackStraw at September 19, 2019 06:28 PM (ZLI7S)

ROFL! This speaks to just how astoundingly incompetent Nadler is. Why the HELL would you call in Al Sharpton to "testify" on anything? That is one of the most idiotic own goals I can think of for him! Who's he going to call next, Jussie Smollett?

My guess is that Nadler had his committee all set up and primed to go for Impeachment, nothing else, and now that hit a brick wall and he's got 16 months to go in this term, and he doesn't have the faintest idea what to do with it. So he flounders and pulls stupid stunts like this.

Posted by: Tom Servo at September 19, 2019 06:36 PM (Kpl3J)

181 ... but, basically, the problem with the cal law is they're amending federal law.

(i'm not angling for an invite.)

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at September 19, 2019 06:36 PM (Pg+x7)

182 Cattle food!
Pig food!
Deer food!
Rabbit food!
Posted by: Flyover's newest and improved nic at September 19, 2019 06:27 PM (B5K06)

Fish, plankton, sea greens and protein from the sea!

Posted by: Josephistan at September 19, 2019 06:37 PM (Izzlo)

183 Resist we Much was having a Hummina Hummina Hummina moment

Posted by: Deep State is in Deep Shit at September 19, 2019 06:38 PM (BqBId)

184 I only see ewok lawyers on tv asking if I've been wrongly injured by giant log traps.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at September 19, 2019 06:39 PM (TWfOY)

185 179

That's kind of a hippy dippy way of saying it that I wouldn't choose, but yeah, it's more complicated than just CO2 bad, hoomons bad.
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:36 PM (jYnPD)

This is because I live in a yurt, and shop at a co-op, isn't it???

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:40 PM (90T4r)

186 Not to Sharpton has always been a Retard !Rep. Weebles is barely cogent at this point

Posted by: Deep State is in Deep Shit at September 19, 2019 06:40 PM (BqBId)

187 >>Democrat Tim Ryan says the government needs to be in charge of "family planning"

This was from today's MSNBC Climate Change thingy with the Dem candidates?

Yang says he wants to control peoples' diets, but since that's complicated, he'd just do so by penalizing cattle ranchers for their herd's flatulence.

- AND -

Yang also wants people to not own cars, that we can solve this with roving electric Uber /lyft cars you can use as needed. (Ask me how I know he's a coastal city dweller)

Amazing how confident these people are in their assumption this is something the can and should do: micro-manage our lives by taking away all of our decisions.

Posted by: Lizzy at September 19, 2019 06:41 PM (bDqIh)

188 You leave money first
then go
Posted by: Cali Chinaman at September 19, 2019 06:36 PM (3DbHL
-----
What's mine is mine.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at September 19, 2019 06:41 PM (iB1oa)

189 This is because I live in a yurt, and shop at a co-op, isn't it???

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:40 PM (90T4r)

Yurt, no. Co-op, yes.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:43 PM (jYnPD)

190 nood Trudeau

Posted by: Hands at September 19, 2019 06:45 PM (786Ro)

191 Yang also wants people to not own cars, that we can solve this with roving electric Uber /lyft cars you can use as needed. (Ask me how I know he's a coastal city dweller)

Amazing how confident these people are in their assumption this is something the can and should do: micro-manage our lives by taking away all of our decisions.
Posted by: Lizzy at September 19, 2019 06:41 PM (bDqIh)187

Like owning a giant Dynamo that you pedal real hard until you almost stroke out, and use the electricity stuff to charge your ipad, and your Nissan Leaf, in order to be able to drive to Whole Paycheck and buy vegan stuff that makes you submissive when you eat it... Utopia!!!

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:45 PM (90T4r)

192 CO2, which we exhale, is a pollutant. No kidding.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at September 19, 2019 06:09 PM (jYnPD)

Lots of carbon compounds and CO2 are released when bodies are cremated. But the Progs plan to kill more deplorables than they can ever bury. And dumping zillions of bodies in the ocean will be unacceptable pollution. Looks like Soylent Green will have to become part of the Green New Deal!

Posted by: Gref at September 19, 2019 06:47 PM (AMIL/)

193 I often forget that ace is a lawyer, until he busts out a post like this one....

Posted by: kraken at September 19, 2019 06:34 PM (90T4r)
..........

Oopty. I need to remember this the next time I start talking about not having enough sand and shit.

Posted by: wth at September 19, 2019 06:49 PM (v0R5T)

194 Matt Gaetz spent his time and Jim Jordan's time reading Sharpton racist quotes Sharpton has uttered over the years. The Dems on the committee jumped in repeatedly to try and save Sharpton but it did help much.

Here's a taste.

https://bit.ly/2kvFGLm
Posted by: JackStraw at September 19, 2019 06:28 PM (ZLI7S)
**************

I like these Alinsky tactics shoved down the Dems throats.

Posted by: redridinghood at September 19, 2019 06:52 PM (wiXsO)

195
nood blackass

Posted by: Soothsayer, very senile at September 19, 2019 06:54 PM (ZvFuy)

196 U.S.C. 7 Sec. 12 (5-A) def. 9 clearly states that Loser's Mates Grade 3rd Class and below are entitled to one (1) annual sexual encounter (as defined in Sec. 12 (9)) with a babe of sufficient hotness so as to satisfy the Court defined rules as stated in U.S. vs. Ugly Chicks, 23 US S. Ct. 539 (2017) et seq. (.)

Posted by: Losers Mate, 4th Class at September 19, 2019 07:14 PM (OKp8N)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0312 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0122 seconds, 205 records returned.
Page size 116 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.