Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Trump Loss in Court

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another Trump Loss in Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, allowing the Manhattan district attorney’s office to subpoena eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns.

    Lawyers for Mr. Trump quickly told the court they would appeal the ruling from Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court. The president’s lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment.

    In a 75-page ruling, Judge Marrero called the president’s argument “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Presidents, their families and businesses are not above the law, the judge ruled.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    To a Clinton appointed judge who replaced Sotomayor... I'll wait for the appeal to be ruled on since Trump didn't get a fair ruling judging from past Obama / Clinton appointee rulings involving him.

    Aside from that, why do these prosecutors need eight (8) years of Trump's personal tax returns? He's been in office three. The max you can go back and amend a personal tax return is three. He gets audited by the IRS every year. Smells like a fishing expedition to me.

    Oh, I'm not defending Trump here at all. I just think his opposition is so desperate to get something, anything, on him they'll resort to anything however questionable, unseemly, or dubiously legal it might be.

    Comment


    • #3
      It doesn't matter, once again, who appointed the judge. Get a grip.

      You defend Trump all the time.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Aside from that, why do these prosecutors need eight (8) years of Trump's personal tax returns? He's been in office three. The max you can go back and amend a personal tax return is three. He gets audited by the IRS every year. Smells like a fishing expedition to me.
        Yea really, I seem to remember just a few years ago (under Obama) when the IRS couldn't do anything wrong, but now they can't be trusted to do their job.

        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
          Yea really, I seem to remember just a few years ago (under Obama) when the IRS couldn't do anything wrong, but now they can't be trusted to do their job.
          That's because their job according those complaining is to get Trump and they're not doing it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Massena View Post
            It doesn't matter, once again, who appointed the judge. Get a grip.

            You defend Trump all the time.
            Get a clue. Judge shopping is so common it has a legal definition

            Judge-shopping refers to a practice of filing several lawsuits that asserts the same claim. Judge shopping is usually done in a court or a district with multiple judges. It is done with the hope of having one of the lawsuits assigned to a favorable judge. It is also done with intent to nonsuit or voluntarily dismiss the others.

            A court faced with judge-shopping has the authority to act to preserve the integrity and control of its docket. Moreover, it is particularly important for a district utilizing a random selection process to jealously guard the integrity of the system from potential abuse which attempts to circumvent the process.[Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Rivera-Cubano, 341 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.P.R. 2004)]. Currently, judge-shopping is a practice that has been universally condemned.
            https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judge-shopping/

            It may be an abominable practice but it happens all the time, particularly with the Left. There's a reason they file mostly in the 9th Circuit for example...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              Get a clue. Judge shopping is so common it has a legal definition



              https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judge-shopping/

              It may be an abominable practice but it happens all the time, particularly with the Left. There's a reason they file mostly in the 9th Circuit for example...
              You and others can't get past the fact that the overwhelming majority of judges, no matter who appointed them, follow their oath and serve ably. This idea of yours is nothing more than allegiance to party and not to country. In short, it's despicable.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                You and others can't get past the fact that the overwhelming majority of judges, no matter who appointed them, follow their oath and serve ably. This idea of yours is nothing more than allegiance to party and not to country. In short, it's despicable.
                Then why has it been over 95% of judges that have ruled against Trump initially being either Obama (majority) or Clinton (a few) appointees? Why have they been almost 100% consistently overturned on appeal? Yes, I have been casually keeping score on that starting with the rulings against Trump's travel ban (all but one judge who was appointed by Bush and one by Clinton in that case were Obama appointees). They were subsequently overturned in whole or part (the Bush appointee in the later case). That pattern has been consistent since then.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  Then why has it been over 95% of judges that have ruled against Trump initially being either Obama (majority) or Clinton (a few) appointees? Why have they been almost 100% consistently overturned on appeal? Yes, I have been casually keeping score on that starting with the rulings against Trump's travel ban (all but one judge who was appointed by Bush and one by Clinton in that case were Obama appointees). They were subsequently overturned in whole or part (the Bush appointee in the later case). That pattern has been consistent since then.
                  You are correct!
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post

                    You and others can't get past the fact that the overwhelming majority of judges, no matter who appointed them, follow their oath and serve ably. This idea of yours is nothing more than allegiance to party and not to country. In short, it's despicable.
                    Oh, then why is there so much of a fight over Supreme Court picks? I'd note the Justices Least likely to follow the Constitution as written, are the ones on the Left of the court. They're the ones willing to find stuff that isn't there, make rulings out of thin air, and find "Rights" that don't exist in the document.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post

                      You and others can't get past the fact that the overwhelming majority of judges, no matter who appointed them, follow their oath and serve ably. This idea of yours is nothing more than allegiance to party and not to country. In short, it's despicable.

                      Judge shopping is pretty easily and frequently done.
                      Ever wonder why the left files its cases in DC or in the 9th Circuit and the right tends to aim for Texas?

                      The judges who ruled against trump's "travel ban" didn't end up with the cases by accident, they were picked. And the judge from Hawaii was so completely partisan as to be an embarrassment.
                      (I read his decision and can add context if needed)
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        Then why has it been over 95% of judges that have ruled against Trump initially being either Obama (majority) or Clinton (a few) appointees? Why have they been almost 100% consistently overturned on appeal? Yes, I have been casually keeping score on that starting with the rulings against Trump's travel ban (all but one judge who was appointed by Bush and one by Clinton in that case were Obama appointees). They were subsequently overturned in whole or part (the Bush appointee in the later case). That pattern has been consistent since then.
                        Additionally, many of the Judges on the Trump cases issue nationwide injunctions. Curiously far more often against trump than anyone else.

                        The rising number of injunctions have affected both Democratic and Republican administrations, but opponents of the Trump administration have accelerated the use of the procedural device. Barr said there were only 20 national injunctions during the eight-year Obama administration, while there have already been roughly 40 in the two-and-a-half years Trump has been in office.
                        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...athetic-judges
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          Oh, then why is there so much of a fight over Supreme Court picks? I'd note the Justices Least likely to follow the Constitution as written, are the ones on the Left of the court. They're the ones willing to find stuff that isn't there, make rulings out of thin air, and find "Rights" that don't exist in the document.


                          Next time RBG rules against an issue supported by the left, I will start to believe she follows the constitution rather than her political beliefs.
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                            Judge shopping is pretty easily and frequently done.
                            Ever wonder why the left files its cases in DC or in the 9th Circuit and the right tends to aim for Texas?

                            The judges who ruled against trump's "travel ban" didn't end up with the cases by accident, they were picked. And the judge from Hawaii was so completely partisan as to be an embarrassment.
                            (I read his decision and can add context if needed)
                            If I recall correctly, one of the judges used Trump's Twitter messages as the basis for his ruling against him...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              If I recall correctly, one of the judges used Trump's Twitter messages as the basis for his ruling against him...
                              yes and campaign statements and the one in Hawaii cited as legal precedent a recent lower court ruling on the travel ban by a judge ins Washington.
                              Lower court rulings can't be used that way.

                              Anyway, when ruling on a law, the court is supposed to look at the plain language of that law. Rather than do as the law dictates, those judges decided that since Trump was a bad man with bad thoughts his laws are unconstitutional.

                              Those decisions were corrupt and dishonest.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X