The Delay of Trump's Tax Returns: Due Process, Cronyism, and Constitutional Rights
On August 10, the release of former President Trump's tax returns was delayed by a crony judge. The decision garnered little attention, yet it raises significant questions about due process, the role of constitutional rights, and the oversight powers of Congress.
Background and Significance
Since Aug. 10, there has been almost no news about the status of Trump's tax returns. It is intriguing that this case has received minimal attention, especially given its potential implications for transparency and accountability in government. Is it significant that 'there’s almost no news'?
The question of a crony judge is highly contentious. Critics argue that the judge’s decision favors a 'crony'—someone akin to a political ally or associate—rather than adhering to the law. However, what is often overlooked is the fundamental principle of due process and the constitutionality of the decision.
Due Process and the Constitution
The decision by the judge to delay the release of Trump's tax returns is based on constitutional grounds. It is an effort to safeguard the privacy of individuals—including the President and former Presidents—from compelled disclosure of their private financial information. This is a matter of personal and constitutional rights, particularly when such information can be misused for political and personal gain.
Some argue that this is an example of 'cronyism,' a term often used to describe favoritism or nepotism. However, a judge who follows the law and protects constitutional rights is not necessarily serving a 'crony.' Instead, this is a clear example of due process in action, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their case before such sensitive information is disclosed.
Delay and Legal Response
According to a brief court hearing on Monday, the Biden administration and the House committee were given a month to respond to Trump's arguments. This is a typical duration in such cases. However, as of August 11, 2021, an Obama-appointed judge decided that only returns from 2017–2018 must be turned over, not the remaining years. This decision was based on the argument that the broad demand for returns from the IRS represents a threat to both sitting and former Presidents.
Tax returns are crucial documents for accountability, but Congress must also articulate a legitimate legislative purpose. For instance, the chairman of the House committee stated in 2019 that his intent was to seek Trump's tax returns for public release. This stated intention does not constitute a legitimate legislative purpose, as it is contrary to the law and can be seen as an act of political favoritism.
Conclusion and Future Developments
The decision to delay the release of Trump's tax returns by a judge is a critical juncture in the battle for transparency and accountability. It raises important questions about the role of judges in upholding constitutional rights and due process.
As the case progresses, it is likely that the House may appeal the judge's decision. This legal battle is far from over, and it remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will ultimately determine the outcome. Regardless of the result, the case underscores the importance of protecting individual and constitutional rights, rather than politicizing every aspect of governance.
References
[Source 1]