It is entirely understandable that this congressional body in this session would want to expedite. Note the Court did grant expedition in the Vance case. The Court is drawing a distinction between the two cases, not the Democrats.
If the argument is that Trump is suing generis & normal presidents don't do this, you just defeated the argument for passing a law.
-
-
Hardly! Trump is sui generis historically, but nobody can be sure he is prospectively. Besides, what possible argument is there not to pass a law? Presidents have no zone of privacy regarding corruption that might undermine the fulfillment of their oath of office.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The thing you need to ask yourself is: why would it be necessary for Dems to eliminate the filibuster to pass a facially and politically neutral presidential disclosure law (when a Dem president would sign it, no less)? Why isn’t that an obvious bill for Rs to co sponsor?
-
I guess, given that you had no further rebuttal that you agreed with me re “limiting principles.” And about facially neutral legislation requiring president and major party nominees release their tax returns to the voting public.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.