Televised Justice

Yeah, but if you wat to vote, get on line…

11 thoughts on “Televised Justice

    1. May I gently introduce you to the “wishful thinking” Unicorn?

      BS, like TK, are just trolling along, content to give the finger every now and then.

      Kind of like the clown in a dunk tank at a state fair. It may feel good to dunk them with a well thrown ball.
      But you are still putting a few bucks in the huckster’s bank account.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. So even after providing you with cases again, you still deny it? The cases were specifically about the requirement for proper legislative purpose and the fact that Congress can’t just subpoena for the purpose of uncovering misdeeds without that purpose. It’s called the Kilbourn test. What are you missing? There is established precedent. Standby to be disappointed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Bobr

      The law in question gives Congress the power to review ANY citizen’s tax returns. The cases you cite are not relevant. Duh!

      Besides, I have three words for you in this discussion of what Congress may or may not do. Are you ready?

      Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You’re such a putz. Those cases have everything to do with it. There is one subpoena for tax returns by Congress feigning the need for them to decide on making it a law that presidential candidates must reveal their taxes. Here’s the buzzer..bzzzzzz! Another to look for Russian hoax money..ha, ha, ha. And another by Manhattan DA looking for hush money. No purpose and entirely unconstitutional. Bzzzzz. You are wrong, there is NO legislative purpose nor need for tax returns in each case and Harvard professors will tell you so. I believe them, not some nickel ante wannabe.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “The law in question gives Congress the power to review ANY citizen’s tax returns.”

        For valid legislative purpose. and with restrictions on the release and use of the information found.

        “The cases you cite are not relevant. Duh!”

        Because you say so? Again?

        Kilbourn v Thompson appears quite relevant to me.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I can’t believe you wrote that. Are you blue yet? If not please show why both Dr. Tabor and BobS are in error. And please, stay in the lane with facts not what you think.


          2. @nivlac531

            BobR asserts that the law in question has been found unconstitutional by SCOTUS and that I am a complete dumb-ass for not knowing that. It is up to him to provide evidence that what he says is true. He cannot do so because he is full of shit.

            He cited two cases on other subjects both from long before the law in question was written. Now he doubles down on the “Kilbourn Test” from one of those cases. This test sets three limits on Congressional inquiries. Congress’s request from the IRS for Trump’s tax returns – in accordance with the explicit law that it may do so – meets those tests. The tests are . . .

            1. Must not “invade areas constitutionally reserved to the courts or the executive.” It doesn’t.
            2. Must deal “with subjects on which Congress could validly legislate”. It does.
            3. It must be stated in the authorizing resolution what the legislative interest is. That was done.

            So, the existence of a ruling with which the request is compliant is NOT a ruling that says that this law is Unconstitutional. Or that the Executive need not comply. The President is not above the law.

            As usual, Trump supporters rely on “alternative facts” because the truth does not serve their purpose.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s