"… it would impermissibly inject itself into the political process by making the value judgment of what information is useful in determining the present candidate’s, or any other candidate’s, fitness for office.”
But isn’t it doing exactly that by choosing to not release?
What is a typical standard for agreeing to unseal divorce records?
No. If it were normal practice to make the records of divorce proceedings public, but the court declined to do so in this case, that would be an example of the court injecting itself. But such proceedings are not normally public, so the court is simply doing what is expected. Sounds like the correct decision, to me.
Edit: I’ve got this wrong. These are usually public records unless the divorce court has agreed to seal them. I have no idea why these were sealed in the first place, but I have the gut feeling that it would be improper for another court to unseal them now, solely because people want to know what’s in them. This court would be hard-pressed to justify second-guessing the judge who sealed the records.
The decision seems a little bullshit to me. Anyone know the standard for whether court documents should be sealed in NY? I can tell you it certainly isn’t “when they’re of no interest to voters.” I don’t understand why this shitty argument was made by the NYT unless it was to deliberately lose.
I don’t’ know about NY law, but under the laws of most states, court files in dissolution cases are public records like all other civil cases. The parties must ask them to be sealed and have a reason. So, Donald Trump is probably getting treated differently than the average person. Is that appropriate?
Will be curious to see what the appellate court says.
Will there be an appeal? Is it possible the judge wanted to punt?
Why would Ivana’s attorney be involved? Leaves open all kinds of speculation.
Why were they sealed in the first place?
(In best AP/FoxNews/CNN voice-over): “WHAT IS TRUMP HIDING???”
The shitty argument was also made by Gannett who does McJournalism so well.
Protecting the image of the candidate from the reality of his character IS injecting the courts sway!!
Not to mention- Its been said by many people that some important documents have been “missing;” particularly ones dealing with the “not rape” forced penis insertion after violent manual depilation of the not victim’s hair.
Bought.
Edit: corrected the format of “I’ve heard” to a more appropriate and forceful colloquialism.
Because she doesn’t want her dirty laundry aired either. And it’s her kids’ father, no matter how horrible we know him to be, she may be trying to protect them. I get it.
If the media would go after Trump with even 1/100 the volume and depth they used to cover emails, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and her getting sick, that would be a lot more than they are doing now.
I wish they would do more than 100% given the stakes and how crazy Trump is.
Wording makes it sound like there is a way to publicize the docs without the courts involvement.
Maybe he’s advocating “not raped gate.”
Indeed. Reading books and articles about how these kids were treated really humanized the stories for me. Sad and infuriating. However, if they want to turn the other cheek and staunchly defend him- well, that’s unhealthy as well.
You gotta wonder who he bribed for this one…
When did paying someone for a legitimate service become “bribery?”
Come on!!
Someone in the media is going after trump furiously, and is David Farenthold of WaPo who’s been on the trail of trump’s byzantine finances for a long time, and that includes his “charitable foundation” (hahahahaha) and his personal “philanthropy (more hahahaha).” There have been links to his stories here, and here are some of them. The man deserves a Pulitzer Prize for what he’s uncovered
Yes, that is one person and I am grateful for what he is doing. However, there were dozens, if not hundreds, that covered email, etc with this level of vigor.
Big Media is overflowing with lazy journalists who would rather do instant analysis on a complex issue and have it make the 24-hour cycle coverage rater than stay on one topic. “Email”, “Clinton Foundation”, “FBI” is quick and easy. And I think they read each other’s stuff and report it as their own.