Trump asks Supreme Court to stop release of his tax returns

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
39,836
41,943
113
well yes, though the argument isn't whether a petition is 'bs'. it is whether it complies with r11, which means that it is based on existing law or good faith construction/extension thereof. that's actually a surprisingly low bar.
That's what I meant by BS, but I don't know the technical stuff well enough to explain it ;)
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
127,587
124,990
113
Former president Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent members of Congress from obtaining his past tax returns in an appeal filed Monday. Should the court decline, the records are set to be turned over to the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday.

“The Committee has no pressing need for Applicants’ information so it can study generic legislation about funding and regulating future IRS audits of future Presidents,” his attorney Cameron Norris wrote, saying the release of records would cause Trump “irreparable harm.”

Last week, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to review earlier rulings finding that lawmakers are entitled to the documents. The court also said it would not put the release of the papers on hold while Trump continues a legal fight that began in 2019. But the Supreme Court could issue an emergency order keeping the records from being released this week.






Lawmakers said they needed Trump’s tax returns from his time in office to help evaluate the effectiveness of annual presidential audits. Trump argued that their aims were actually to embarrass him politically, but federal judges have consistently ruled that the lawmakers established the “valid legislative purpose” required for disclosure.
This is not the only case in which Trump is seeking to shield his financial information. The Supreme Court last year declined to block the release of Trump’s financial records for a New York state investigation, and in 2020 it upheld Congress’s right to subpoena that information with some limitations.


....so.....uh.....there's not really an "audit" preventing this?

Weird.
 

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
73,031
52,692
113
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily blocked the House Ways and Means Committee from obtaining years of federal income tax returns of former President Donald Trump from the IRS.

Roberts’ order came a day after Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking the delay.




The chief justice gave the Ways and Means Committee until Nov. 10 to respond to Trump’s request for a longer delay of the order preventing them from getting his tax returns for the years 2015 through 2020.

A federal judge in December ordered the IRS to hand over Trump’s records to the committee, which has said it wants them as part of a probe of how the agency audits presidential returns.

Trump had appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit but lost that effort in August.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court, in a unanimous decision, noted that while tax returns as a rule are confidential under federal law, an exception is when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee requests returns in writing from the secretary of the Treasury Department, the parent of the IRS.

Last week, the appeals court denied Trump’s request that a larger panel of judges on that court reconsider the case, leading to his emergency application asking the Supreme Court to intervene.




Roberts has authority over emergency applications issued from the D.C. circuit court.

 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
127,587
124,990
113
It's just mind boggling how these Justices think it's ethical to get involved in this stuff.

Same with Thomas protecting Lindsay Graham.
If Roberts is concerned with the "legitimacy" of his Court, he could start by acting legitimate and following the established laws. Which were put in place specifically in response to corruption and bribery in the early 1900s.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
127,587
124,990
113

And Roberts is facilitating that "request".
The self-awareness of his Court's legitimacy is mind boggling...
 
Nov 9, 2007
1,038
2,140
113
Since we've heard this similar story for about 8 years, I'll just say TRUMP IS A GIANT WEENIE! (always wanted to type that, but for real, he is)
Just want to bump my prior post because it's clear, concise, and well-reasoned.
The audit should wind up and the tax returns released just about when Mexico pays for that big beautiful wall.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,335
18,131
113
After they are sworn in, the POTUS has absolutely no control or influence over them. Justices owe no duty to the POTUS as a result of being appointed.

as we’ve learned over and over the past few years, there are very few checks on SC justices. I confess I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be a conflict Of interest to rule on a case brought to the SC by the very guy who gave them their current jobs. Not some indirect connection, but brought specifically by him.

and what’s silly about this is I don’t really believe at this point there’s much illegality involved here (but I think the question should be answered), but I think trump simply doesn’t want to be embarrassed by the truth of his financials.
If they ran against a democrat in your area, you would vote against them every time.

depends on the race involved, but admittedly more often than not tho, I’d likely vote democrat as more of my beliefs lean that direction. I’d like to return tho to being able to respect both candidates, and actually have a choice.

I like and respect both Cheney and Kinzinger. That doesnt mean, nor should it, that I agree with them on everything.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
Sigh. Again, it's an administrative stay pending briefing. Please try not to get your panties in a wad.
 

IowaPackFan

HR All-American
Dec 30, 2006
3,888
1,891
113
Surprised Roberts, the courts independent/moderate, granted the stay. As I often say, I’m no legal beagle, but I’m guessing there’s a legitimate legal reason for this especially since it’s coming from Roberts who doesn’t partake in the political games.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
as we’ve learned over and over the past few years, there are very few checks on SC justices. I confess I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be a conflict Of interest to rule on a case brought to the SC by the very guy who gave them their current jobs. Not some indirect connection, but brought specifically by him.

and what’s silly about this is I don’t really believe at this point there’s much illegality involved here (but I think the question should be answered), but I think trump simply doesn’t want to be embarrassed by the truth of his financials.


depends on the race involved, but admittedly more often than not tho, I’d likely vote democrat as more of my beliefs lean that direction. I’d like to return tho to being able to respect both candidates, and actually have a choice.

I like and respect both Cheney and Kinzinger. That doesnt mean, nor should it, that I agree with them on everything.
part of the problem with your argument is that it proves too much. while it is certainly fair to make a distinction between lawsuits involving the president in his personal capacity and presidents in their official capacity, if mere appointment makes a justice beholden to a president, it would logically do so as well in cases involving legal challenges to policies of his/her administration. And of course, it also opens up all sorts of potential mischief in the nature of naming presidents as unnecessary defendants in order to shape a potential future case's panel.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,335
18,131
113
part of the problem with your argument is that it proves too much. while it is certainly fair to make a distinction between lawsuits involving the president in his personal capacity and presidents in their official capacity, if mere appointment makes a justice beholden to a president, it would logically do so as well in cases involving legal challenges to policies of his/her administration. And of course, it also opens up all sorts of potential mischief in the nature of naming presidents as unnecessary defendants in order to shape a potential future case's panel.
Disagree. This is a lawsuit brought by Trump himself. He’s not a defendant or an interested party. This is a very specific instance.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
Surprised Roberts, the courts independent/moderate, granted the stay. As I often say, I’m no legal beagle, but I’m guessing there’s a legitimate legal reason for this especially since it’s coming from Roberts who doesn’t partake in the political games.
1. Again, it's an administrative stay.
2. As I think I noted yesterday, there is a certain reality to the point that scotus is going to tread very lightly in cases involving disputes between the two branches of government. What I mean by that is that in such cases, they are going to tend to lean toward giving one or the other branch a fair chance to have their say before ruling on a dispute. This principle of comity is not something that has suddenly evolved out of thin air.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
Disagree. This is a lawsuit brought by Trump himself. He’s not a defendant or an interested party. This is a very specific instance.
as i said, it is a fair distinction to argue. but to my point, courts will generally give the two branches (or, as a practical matter, their former officeholders) their chance to make that argument. certainly more than they would you or i in some contractual dispute between us
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
127,587
124,990
113
as i said, it is a fair distinction to argue. but to my point, courts will generally give the two branches (or, as a practical matter, their former officeholders) their chance to make that argument. certainly more than they would you or i in some contractual dispute between us

Trump was never a "branch of government".

The Exec branch holds no interest here.
 

BGHAWK

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
18,246
11,136
113
temporary = a limited time. Who gets to say how long is limited? A stay, how long is a stay, a few days or weeks or maybe until say past January 3rd 2023? That seems about right for a corrupt unethical SCJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
Which "two branches of government" are at odds here?

Answer: NONE
the house.
a former (and god help us no potentially future) president

i get that that's putatively not what this is about. but the comity principle is going to be interpreted liberally
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
temporary = a limited time. Who gets to say how long is limited? A stay, how long is a stay, a few days or weeks or maybe until say past January 3rd 2023? That seems about right for a corrupt unethical SCJ.
briefs on the full stay due, i believe 11/10

having now actually read the petition, btw, suffice it to say that the question as presented is very much one of interbranch disputes and interests, particularly inasmuch as the putative basis for the request was to provide oversight of the presidential audit program that the irs administers. again, you can say that's not the case here (i have no opinion), but let's just not mke stuff up.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,197
3,317
113
It's just mind boggling how these Justices think it's ethical to get involved in this stuff.

Same with Thomas protecting Lindsay Graham.
which administrative stay, of course, just got lifted by the full court, without dissent.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
127,587
124,990
113
Hey everyone, look at this HROT Mr Tough Guy who has more understanding of the law than the lone impartial SCOTUS justice…
What do you believe the "legal merits" are, then?

The law as written here is very clear. There is no "carve out" for either a sitting President, which clearly establishes no carve out for a former one, either.
 

IowaPackFan

HR All-American
Dec 30, 2006
3,888
1,891
113
What do you believe the "legal merits" are, then?

The law as written here is very clear. There is no "carve out" for either a sitting President, which clearly establishes no carve out for a former one, either.
I’m no legal expert, but you know who is? The person who made the decision.
Sorry, but I’m gonna defer legal matters to Roberts, the most impartial Justice on the SCOTUS, over some internet tough guy who thinks he knows the law better.
Now be on your way you petulant butt-sniffer who lives in their mama’s basement while HROT and even CycloneFanatics take turns with her and go write a scathing email to NASA telling them how they’re doing it all wrong. Go tell MIT their math is wrong. Go tell Steph Curry his form is terrible.
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Feb 4, 2004
23,115
20,022
113
Fort Lauderdale
You can read a legal statute, I'm sure, though.

Show me in the statute that is applicable here, where any "current President" or "former President" is called out for special consideration.
Show me where the house has ever wanted to get a presidents/former presidents tax returns so that they can determine if the IRS has done its job.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

BGHAWK

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
18,246
11,136
113
Show me where the house has ever wanted to get a presidents/former presidents tax returns so that they can determine if the IRS has done its job.

Show all of us where a president or past president promised to show his tax returns and lied by not doing it. Show me which prior president was so corrupt that he was under multiple federal and state investigations and the prosecutors needed the tax returns.
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Feb 4, 2004
23,115
20,022
113
Fort Lauderdale
Show all of us where a president or past president promised to show his tax returns and lied by not doing it. Show me which prior president was so corrupt that he was under multiple federal and state investigations and the prosecutors needed the tax returns.
Can you show me the law where it is REQUIRED?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk