Supreme Court to Trump: Hand Over Your Taxes!

[Macbrother]

I’m surprised the scotus decided not to take the Pennsylvania case. That is a slam duck win for Trump and a slap in the face towards people who violated to constitution to stack the deck for Biden. It’s plain as day in the constitution that it is the state legislature job. Partisans in Pennsylvania who took oaths to uphold the constitution put their party politics over our limitations of government power. They are dangerous individuals.

Has it occurred to you that the Pennsylvania state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court might know more about Constitutional law than you do?

 

[PT Car Washer]

Has it occurred to you that the Pennsylvania state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court might know more about Constitutional law than you do?

It's all a conspiracy.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Has it occurred to you that the Pennsylvania state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court might know more about Constitutional law than you do?

“One wonders what the Court waits for,” Thomas wrote. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.”

Thomas continued. “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.”

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Has it occurred to you that the Pennsylvania state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court might know more about Constitutional law than you do?

I'm not clear on the rules, since you guys change them all the time. Does it make you white supremacist for implying that Justice Thomas doesn't know as much about constitutional law as all the white judges you agree with?

 

[vantexan]

Yes it is. Just look at how bad Paul Ryan and John Boehner were at it.

OK, not hard with Democrats who love to spend. Trump had trouble getting Republicans to spend too.

 

[El Correcto]

Has it occurred to you that the Pennsylvania state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court might know more about Constitutional law than you do?

Yea, which is why I’m dying to hear their opinion on the Pennsylvania lawsuit, especially now that the stupid bitch Ginsburg is 6 feet under burning in hell.

 

[Macbrother]

“One wonders what the Court waits for,” Thomas wrote. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.”

Thomas continued. “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.”

"We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate ballots received later than the deadline set by the legislature. And none of the parties contend that those ballots made an outcome-determinative difference in any relevant federal election."

Even in his dissent, Clarence Thomas dismisses the thoroughly debunked election fraud hoax - of course that won't stop you from hawking it.

I'm not clear on the rules, since you guys change them all the time. Does it make you white supremacist for implying that Justice Thomas doesn't know as much about constitutional law as all the white judges you agree with?

The only rule I'm clear on is 8 > 1

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Even in his dissent, Clarence Thomas dismisses the thoroughly debunked election fraud hoax - of course that won't stop you from hawking it.

Election fraud hoax?
Nice deflection from the fact that Democrats successfully rigged the election.

 

[Macbrother]

Election fraud hoax?
Nice deflection from the fact that Democrats rigged the election.

Not according to your friend Clarence.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Democrats successfully rigged the election.

Not according to your friend Clarence.

Actually that's exactly what he said:

Thomas continued. “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends

 

[Macbrother]

Yes actually that's exactly what he said:

Thomas continued. “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends

"We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate ballots received later than the deadline set by the legislature. And none of the parties contend that those ballots made an outcome-determinative difference in any relevant federal election."

What part of "didn't make a difference" are you having trouble with?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Democrats successfully rigged the election.

What part of "didn't make a difference" are you having trouble with?

Which part of "successfully rigged" are you having trouble with?

Thomas continued. “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends.

 

[Supersoaker]

Election fraud hoax?
Nice deflection from the fact that Democrats successfully rigged the election.

And the Jewish Space Lasers burnt California.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And the Jewish Space Lasers burnt California.

Cool story Jack.

 

[Supersoaker]

Cool story Jack.

Yep, write your Congressman! Unless they are a space lizard caused by vaccination RNA changes.

 

[bottomups]

Ofer 2

Actually she's 2 for 2. The Senate is 0-2.

 

[bottomups]

Yea, which is why I’m dying to hear their opinion on the Pennsylvania lawsuit, especially now that the stupid bitch Ginsburg is 6 feet under burning in hell.

Right next to Rush.

 

[bacha29]

And considering the size of his holdings that's a lot of info. What makes him any different from any other billionaire/millionaire? He's been audited plenty in the past. This is retribution, nothing more.

You're forgetting something here. This is a New York State case focused on his activities as they pertain to his New York state tax liabilities. To what extent if any extends outside of NY is something only time will tell.

I’m surprised the scotus decided not to take the Pennsylvania case. That is a slam duck win for Trump and a slap in the face towards people who violated to constitution to stack the deck for Biden. It’s plain as day in the constitution that it is the state legislature job. Partisans in Pennsylvania who took oaths to uphold the constitution put their party politics over our limitations of government power. They are dangerous individuals.

If any one or any course of action regarding the Pennsylvania matter is ruled unconstitutional the blame rests with the GOP controlled Pa. state legislature. it was they who enthusiastically introduced and backed the mail in ballot legislation with the whole hearted or as they found out later fool hearted belief that the measure would better ensure Trump's chances of carrying the state.

Well, when they discovered that it hurt rather than helped Trump they went running off to the Pa Supreme Court demanding that all mail in ballot be tossed out. the PASC laughed them clear out of the courtroom and for good reason . For one, the PAGOP was not going to get millions of legally cast mail in ballots tossed out for no other reason than for the fact that they didn't like not disagree with per say but simply didn't like the outcome of a voting method that was their own design. Secondly and the PAGOP was well aware of this, the timeline for challenging the constitutionality of the election process had long since expired. Another example of just how confident they were that their own legislation will seal the deal for Dear Leader.

As for SCOTUS, well, you saw what they thought of the PAGOP's attempt to put Pa in Dear Leader's pile and the political rewards they were certain would be coming their way.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You're forgetting something here. This is a New York State case focused on his activities as they pertain to his New York state tax liabilities. To what extent if any extends outside of NY is something only time will tell.

If any one or any course of action regarding the Pennsylvania matter is ruled unconstitutional the blame rests with the GOP controlled Pa. state legislature. it was they who enthusiastically introduced and backed the mail in ballot legislation with the whole hearted or as they found out later fool hearted belief that the measure would better ensure Trump's chances of carrying the state.

Well, when they discovered that it hurt rather than helped Trump they went running off to the Pa Supreme Court demanding that all mail in ballot be tossed out. the PASC laughed them clear out of the courtroom and for good reason . For one, the PAGOP was not going to get millions of legally cast mail in ballots tossed out for no other reason than for the fact that they didn't like not disagree with per say but simply didn't like the outcome of a voting method that was their own design. Secondly and the PAGOP was well aware of this, the timeline for challenging the constitutionality of the election process had long since expired. Another example of just how confident they were that their own legislation will seal the deal for Dear Leader.

As for SCOTUS, well, you saw what they thought of the PAGOP's attempt to put Pa in Dear Leader's pile and the political rewards they were certain would be coming their way.

Wrong.

 

[vantexan]

You're forgetting something here. This is a New York State case focused on his activities as they pertain to his New York state tax liabilities. To what extent if any extends outside of NY is something only time will tell.

If any one or any course of action regarding the Pennsylvania matter is ruled unconstitutional the blame rests with the GOP controlled Pa. state legislature. it was they who enthusiastically introduced and backed the mail in ballot legislation with the whole hearted or as they found out later fool hearted belief that the measure would better ensure Trump's chances of carrying the state.

Well, when they discovered that it hurt rather than helped Trump they went running off to the Pa Supreme Court demanding that all mail in ballot be tossed out. the PASC laughed them clear out of the courtroom and for good reason . For one, the PAGOP was not going to get millions of legally cast mail in ballots tossed out for no other reason than for the fact that they didn't like not disagree with per say but simply didn't like the outcome of a voting method that was their own design. Secondly and the PAGOP was well aware of this, the timeline for challenging the constitutionality of the election process had long since expired. Another example of just how confident they were that their own legislation will seal the deal for Dear Leader.

As for SCOTUS, well, you saw what they thought of the PAGOP's attempt to put Pa in Dear Leader's pile and the political rewards they were certain would be coming their way.

You're forgetting something here. This is a New York State case focused on his activities as they pertain to his New York state tax liabilities. To what extent if any extends outside of NY is something only time will tell.

Even so any earned income from anywhere is on his Federal returns. Anything that's on his NY state returns is on his Federal too. Considering that the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which was the office in charge of granting tax exempt status to political action committees, was approving almost all Democratic PAC's while denying that status to almost all Republican PAC's, do you really think the IRS would hesitate scouring all of Trump's returns for anything.damning to leak before the 2016 election? Already established that the Obama administration spied on Trump's campaign and transition team.