A federal judge said on Thursday that he will order a temporary injunction against California’s law requiring presidential candidates to provide their tax returns in order to appear on the state’s ballot.
Cause a candidate "irreparable harm without temporary relief” ?
The judge is confused on who is being irreparably harmed… the public or a single citizen refusing to abide by decades of tacit agreement.
Answer. As demonstrated by the orange buffoon, the public has been harmed by the candidate’s lies.
U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. said the law would cause candidates, including President Donald Trump, “irreparable harm without temporary relief.”
So being shown a fraud is “irreparable harm” now? Hmm…
TPM, take the 3 seconds to google what we all know the result will be anyway…
‘said the law would cause candidates, including President Donald Trump, “irreparable harm without temporary relief.”’
Seriously, how about the irreparable harm to the United States that occurs when we elect a president who has not been properly vetted? It’s like hiring a new employee at a daycare center without a criminal background check and then later finding out that the new employee has a serious criminal record.
On a side note why is Jay Sekulow popping his head up now on this case? I thought Consovoy was Trump’s knight against all dragons trying to steal a look at his tax returns?
That’s a weird angle to take on it…how is a candidate harmed by showing their tax returns as part of running for office? It should make interesting reading how the conservative judge jumps through hoops to make that ruling work.
Appellate Court would be the Ninth Circuit, no???
Black Dubya appointee knows who butters his bread. Story at 11.
All things considered though, given the test for a preliminary injunction and the nature of what we’re talking about here…i.e., the release of information that cannot be undone once done…I suspect the decision is heavy on “irreparable harm” analysis and light on “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” analysis. CA clearly gets to determine its states primary election rules, but without already having all the law and cases and everything assembled to make THAT decision, he’s erring on the side of caution.
More consequences. Republican appointee. Maybe this was a valid decision but the first thing I did was see who put this judge in
place.
Yep. It’s a shame so many asshats went to the Her Emails School of Law in 2016.
The CA State Supreme Court is going to be hearing a challenge to the law, hearing date not yet scheduled. Nevertheless, it was a ballsy move on the part of CA Governor Newsom and Secy of State Padilla to even think of pursuing this even though success was never guaranteed. Maybe someone somewhere else can come up with something more innovative becase moron has said right now he’s releasing his returns for 2020.
How I wish dubya could’ve pursued his dream of being baseball commissioner instead of being talked into running for prez by George Schultz who said “Do it. I told RR the same thing and he won.”
So let me get this straight. Federal courts are entirely prohibited from taking up challenges to state laws that draw districts on the basis of partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court told us just a few weeks ago that those cases are completely “non-justiciable political questions” and so the federal courts must stay completely out of it. But California imposes a simple ballot requirement in furtherance of integrity and ethics in government, and a federal court can strike that down. It will be interesting to see if this judge even addresses Rucho v. Common Cause when he enters a written opinion in a few weeks. Does anyone know if this case was discussed at the hearing today, or in the briefing of the parties?
Once again the American people are being harmed by not being provided the information about candidates, especially the OrangeSpoiledBaby, that they need to make informed decisions on candidates.
So comforting to know the GOP cares about irreparible harm - to the president, not the nation.
I’m having a tough time figuring out why a TRO is appropriate this far out from the printing of the California ballots (which can’t occur until after the primaries and conventions), unless there’s an assumption that the case will not be finally adjudicated by then. This will go to the 9th Circuit, but not necessarily to the USSCT, unless the Supremes decide to take it. Based on the timing, I don’t see any justification for a TRO.
But the USSCT probably will grant certiorari, to protect Trump.
I’m also wondering why this was in the federal District Court rather than in a California State court, since most law governing federal elections is actually state law. (That’s behind the BS reason McConnell has been giving for blocking the election security legislation.) Perhaps it started there and then was removed to the District Court.
Anyone know?
Because it’s a Republican “judge”
No surprise. Republicans are against background checks.
Jerry Brown vetoed a virtually identical bill two years ago.
Partly because its constitutionality is questionable, partly because it creates a “slippery slope” template for future ballot-access requirements that could be purely abusive.
Jerry Brown is an anti-Trump in pretty much every possible way, and his take on this one deserves respect.
The TRO just means no one gets kicked off the ballot before the constitutionality issue is decided on the merits, first by England (I practice in his district and he is not a partisan hack) and then by the higher courts.
I think it’s a correct application of injunction law, even if denying it might feel better.