• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would it mean if SCOTUS agrees with Trump on IRS law?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump and the GOP re defying the IRS law which requires the IRS to give the Congress any tax return that the Congress requests. In the end, this will require a decision by SCOTUS on whether Trump can do so. I believe that Trump feels that he/GOP control the SCOTUS through the five conservative judges, of which two owe their positions to Trump. The law seems clear that the Congress can request any tax return they wish, but what if the SCOTUS just says no to the congress request. I say it will then eliminate SCOTUS as anything but a Trump/GOP controlled court and no longer be the impartial arbitrator of the law that it has been in the past. It will have become an arm of the GOP. What do you think?
 

The distant past... It's too late.

Lawlessness has pervaded the GOP for decades. It goes back to the idiotic mantra the "government is the problem." Because they don't "believe in" government, they can't govern, and don't respect laws. It has only become increasingly obvious since 2000 and Donald Trump is merely the apotheosis. A ruling against Congress by SCOTUS would merely be the natural denouement of the trend. It would signal the final capitulation to autocracy, and I fully expect it.

The Supreme Court may once again stand for the principles of liberty and justice for all, but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. Too much damage to law and principle has already been done. It will take a generation, or more, to recover, and I'm not convinced we have that long.
 
You're right, but I think that this would be past even their very corrupt limits, and they will rule for Congress.
 

It isn't "IRS law". It's US statutory law. The law was written by congress.

However...

That doesn't mean the law in question is Constitutional. If the law violates the protections of the Constitution then it needs to be struck down. IRC 6103 is likely, at least in part, unconstitutional because it allows congress to violate the 4th Amendment at will. That wasn't the intent of 6103 but when we have a congress that hates the Constitution and finds it to be nothing more than a barrier to their political whims that corrupt congress will find a way to turn such laws on their head.

If Trump's election has proved one thing it's the pure genius of a bicameral legislature and co-equal branches of government in thwarting the tyranny of the Democrat party.
 

This level of being brainwashed raises real questions about the theory of self-government, based on an informed, rational populace. It helps show why things like Salem witch hunts are not hard to happen.

It's not irrational at first, and uses words such as 'bicameral legislature', and then goes into the ditch of totally crazy about 'the tyranny of the Democrat (sic) party". I could see this sort of brainwashing lead to violence.
 

it is a phishing expedition for political reasons....nothing more

and unless the congress can give exact reasons WHY they want to see his returns, and the scope of how they will be looked at, it should be challenged imo

we are entitled to privacy in this country....and there is NO LAW that says a president MUST disclose his tax returns before running for office

if we want to make that a law, great....lets vote to make that a law
 

It's not going to because that means congress can comb through the financial records of anyone in search of a crime "just in case". An "Inquisition" into every one you don't like's finances.

Obviously, the answer to this is to require all members of congress and staffers have the same standards applied to them. After all, most House and Senate members multi millionaires earned by selling inside information.

Or is it just the private sector you hate?
 

Before you get your panties in a twist, perhaps you should wait to see what reasoning the Supremes use as a basis for a decision that is favorable to Trump.

I can think of a couple approaches they might make and neither would indicate that they are a "Trump/GOP controlled court".

Let me know when your worst fears become reality and we'll talk about it.
 

There IS a law that says Congress can look at any return it wants, and it was specifically in response to the president's scandal a century ago in the Teapot Dome scandal, meant to put a check on the president.

You think Republicans in Congress wouldn't get a Democratic president's tax returns, if the president hadn't released them already, for no reason, unlike the huge reasons for trump?
 

The Democrats demanded Trump's tax returns because they KNEW that the returns would prove coordination with Russia. Mueller, THEIR GUY, says there was no coordination with Russia. Now the Democrats want Trump's returns to see if they can find some other crime.

When I say "tyranny of the Democrats" I'm talking about EXACTLY your kind of thinking. The idea that one party should be allowed to bend the law to their whims and against the opposing political party of a political individual is the seed of all tyrannies.
 
As Rachel Maddow explained, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. There was an organization that helped Vietnam veterans protest the war, and a very 'conservative' Senator went after their tax returns looking for any wrong - a 'witch hunt'.

The organization filed suit to block their returns being release, and the Supreme Court ruled against them, saying the court had NO BUSINESS questioning Congress's motive, the merit of why they wanted to see them, as long as it was what they had decided was legislative business - and a lot of experts she asked agreed.

That's not to say the court couldn't act in a corrupt, partisan manner - something the Republican Justices do a lot - but it'd be a pretty extreme act at this point.

Why can't Republicans put the country first for once, and stop parroting mob boss trump's absurd lies about 'witch hunt', and recognize the many tax crimes he's committed as the NY Times showed?
 

The law does not require the Congress to give reason, only that it is part of the legislative needs, which can easily be proved as the requirement is very vague. And if he wants his name on the ballot of at least 18 states he will have to give up his tax returns. They have passed laws requiring everyone on the ballot to do so. States have that right under our Constitution.
 

Oh get over it, they are a court controlled by the GOP, no questions asked. The real question in this case is whether they want to show their hand now or in the future with a more imprtanat case. Peopl's belief in the court is falling off quickly. although they do not care.
 

People have been losing faith in the Court for quite a while now and this census case would simply be another nail in the coffin. There will eventually come a time of reckoning and it will be swift and brutal and then all the right wingers in the world cannot stop the wrath and anger directed against them for travesties such as this. It will happen as the pendulum comes back around. Count on it.
 

What if the "states" decided they wanted everyone working for the government would need to pass a drug test, or how about anyone receiving government welfare of ANY kind also need to pass drugs tests monthly? Is that, considered by you, an invasion of someone's privacy? How about ANYONE that works for the government just sign a waiver to their constitutional rights?


The Bills of rights, along with the Amendments are not negotiable.



Tim-
 

great...that was a crime they were looking into

they passed a law so they could see tax returns on such

what CRIME are they searching for....exact crime....not a phishing expedition in this case

tell me WHY they need to see them....just like a DA needs to justify a search warrant to a judge, they need to justify this search to the SCOTUS
 
Craig234 said:
Why can't Republicans put the country first for once, and stop parroting mob boss trump's absurd lies about 'witch hunt', and recognize the many tax crimes he's committed as the NY Times showed?
Click to expand...
Country first went out a long time ago... two words, Merrick Garland. I also found it very interesting that 18 months of New York Times reportage, that was vociferously denied by Trump and the White House, was unequivocally proven accurate in the Mueller report (e.g, Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller).

This is a simple issue: the statute which created the IRS, and the tax system, includes a provision that allows limited individuals unfettered access to IRS filings. What happens with those documents after they are turned over is another matter. Think about it this way: Your 1040 is a document that you prepare and communicate to the federal government. What we're really talking about is whether that information can be shared within the government. The rest is sturm und drang, or as the bard put it, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
 

you better reread those issues...they arent laws yet


Eighteen states have considered legislation this year that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to post their tax returns to appear on the ballot during a primary or general election, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Proponents of the bills, such as the one passed by the Washington state Senate this week, say they are aimed at increasing transparency and returning to the “norm” of candidates releasing their financial records. But Democratic lawmakers behind the some of the legislation have admitted they are also very much about Trump, which raises legal and political questions about how far states can — or should — go in regulating who appears on their ballot, especially in a hyperpartisan climate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ome-law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.318dc1c91b9a

have considered....not passed

and they will have to pass the same requirements as far as privacy standards (does it go against the 4th amendment)

it definitely could be challenged
 

I haven't the faintest idea how the SCOTUS will rule on this. But it may depend on how they look at the request from congress. For legit legislative purposes, then the SCOTUS will probably side with congress. For gotcha purposes, then perhaps with Trump. Anyone's guess.

Any time I think I know how the SCOTUS would rule, they always rule in the opposite. So my track record is nil when it comes to the SCOTUS.
 

Take off the tin foil and wait for facts. You'll feel better and you'll gain credibility.
 

this would take more than a law. this would take a constitutional amendment.
 

That isn't what the law says, but this takes a bit of reading and comprehension.

First off there is this restriction.
no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), subsection (k)(10), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection ,
shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.

So even if they get his tax returns they are not allowed to disclose them to anyone or anybody.
to do so is a violation of the law.

there is this restriction.

except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.


so the committee must be in an executive closed session otherwise trump must give his consent.
I read somewhere else that it must deal with some kind of legislative process.

IE basically these nutjobs can't go on fishing expeditions.

however if they want to play this game so can the president.

In generalUpon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request.

IE the president can request all of their tax returns.
 

it would mean that the 4th amendment is strongly in place along with other constitutional protections on privacy.
that is exactly what it would mean.
 
ludin said:
That isn't what the law says, but this takes a bit of reading and comprehension.
Click to expand...
This raises several questions, my friend. First, why is it that you took these examples or of context with no citations/links? Second, is sauce for the gander fit for the goose? Why is it you feel/assert a congressional inquiry prohibited when a presidential one isn't? Does the Fourth Amendment exempt the president? How is an expressly stated basis for inquiry a fishing expedition? Seeking salmon but only landing crappie? Inquiring minds want to know. (Not really, but I'm being polite.)
 

This raises a bigger question as to why you hacked my post apart that contained all of the information that was needed?
then proceeded to ask me the same question that is in everything that i quoted.

why? it is easy it is called simple dishonesty.
there is a quote button for a reason. the quote button quotes everything that the person posts in context.

try again if you can if not you are simply just yet another dishonest poster to add to the multitudes of dishonest posters here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…