GOVEROTRAGEOUS: “SALT” in our wounds

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/18/supreme-court-definitively-ends-the-salt-tax-deduction-case/?comments=true#comment-9453494

Supreme Court Definitively Ends the SALT Tax Deduction Case

  • The highly dubious lawsuit filed by four blue states against the the law capping federal tax deductions for state and local taxes is now truly dead in the water.

Ilya Somin | 4.18.2022 8:26 PM

*** begin quote ***

As Jonathan Adler points out, today the Supreme Court refused to review a lower-court decision upholding the 2017 tax law’s caps on the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes. The law, enacted by a GOP-controlled Congress, limits this $10,000 for individual taxpayers and married couples filing jointly, and $5000 for married people filing separately.  Jonathan rightly notes that the case never had much merit, which is why it was uniformly rejected by the lower-court judges who considered it (all of them Democratic appointees).

I have followed this case from its inception. The claims the plaintiffs raised about coercion, the Tenth Amendment, and other issues, are important for anyone who follows constitutional federalism issues, and would have set a dangerous new precedent had they succeeded. Here is a list of my posts about it.

*** end quote ***

While I am far from “rich”, having real estate in a “blue state”, I’m impacted by SALT.

i object to the entire concept of the “federal income tax”. The Dead Old White Guys must be rolling over when SCOTUS affirms the income tax and all the host of other confiscatory taxes that the central Gooferment levies on the people.

“We, The Sheeple” are just stupid cowards. The Revolution was fought over the King’s taxes which were a fraction of what we pay today. If the Blue States really had their acts togeter, they’d secede from the Union. If the Red States really had their acts togeter, they’d secede from the Union. There is NO reason to allow Washington to run our lives with one size fits all Gooferment policies.

Time has come for everyone to go their separate ways.

“Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” Mel Gibson as the character Benjamin Martin in the movie The Patriot http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/quotes

We should trade for local tyrants, as opposed to Washington DC tyrants, because we MIGHT be able to convince the locals.  If not, it’s not a far drive to bring the torches and pitchforks.

Argh!

—30—

BIGOTRY: Boston bureaucrat practices religious discrimination

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/01/20/exclusive-kobach-supreme-court-appears-ready-to-protect-a-christian-flag-in-boston-case/

Exclusive–Kobach: Supreme Court Appears Ready to Protect a Christian Flag in Boston Case
KRIS W. KOBACH
20 Jan 2022

*** begin quote ***

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the City of Boston’s refusal to allow a private organization to fly a Christian flag on a flagpole next to City Hall that was routinely made available to any private organization that applied to do so.  The case is Shurtleff v. City of Boston.

*** and ***

The conservative Justices seemed likely to rule against the City.  Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the City was “treat[ing] religious viewpoints the equivalent of offensive or inappropriate ones.”  Justice Thomas reacted to the City of Boston’s claim that it was celebrating diversity by allowing other nations’ flags to fly by pointing out, “it would seem to me that Christians in Boston would be a part of that diversity calculus.”

Even Justice Kagan suggested that “this was a mistake” by the Boston bureaucrat who denied the application.  She wondered why the City had not settled the case with the plaintiffs.

These and other statements suggest that the Court isn’t buying Boston’s arguments.  Hopefully that proves to be true when the Supreme Court’s decision is issued.  For too long, too many government bureaucrats have been hostile to Christianity and its symbols.  A victory in this case for the plaintiffs would do much to reverse that trend.

Kris W. Kobach served as the Secretary of State of Kansas during 2011-2019.  Prior to that, he was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law during 1996-2011.  An expert in immigration law and policy, he was also an informal adviser to President Trump.  He is currently General Counsel of the Alliance for Free Citizens.  His website is www.kriskobach.com. 

*** end quote ***

While I have no real problem with SCOTUS smacking down the Boston bureaucrats, I wonder why the flag pole is there at all.

It serves no legitimate public purpose other than making work for the politicians and bureaucrats.

Also, I don’t think Churches should fly the Gooferment’s flag EVER.

In the old days, “the Church” was a power that kept the King in check.  Today, it’s like a rubber stamp for the Gooferment.

We need more protection from the tyranny of the Big Deep State and its politicians and bureaucrats.

Argh!

—30—

 

VETERANS: An outrageous push to mutilate a war memorial

It looks like America’s next big religious-freedom case could center on the war memorial known as the “Peace Cross.” The Supreme Court justices recently agreed to hear the case this year.God

Source: An outrageous push to mutilate a war memorial

# – # – # – # – #

To find this is “religious” is absurd!

— 30 —

GUNS: Would Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia say the same thing about “free speech”?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate

*** begin quote ***

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.

Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”

“We’ll see,” he said.

*** end quote ***

Now imagine if he said “free speech” legislation and “we’ll see”?

The Press and the Liberal would excoriate him.

Are there no “problems” with Free Speech? No KKK. No porn. No seven forbidden words. No lies on TV. No political promises, forgotten immediately upon election. Has no one died as a results of these? I think they have.

Free Speech has issues. But, we don’t throw away the Principle at the hint of trouble!

Gun deaths don’t come anywhere near the totals of military and civilian deaths in the UnConstitutional “wars” overseas we find ourselves ensnared. Nowhere near the total of abortions. Nowhere near car accidents. 

So, humbly, I suggest that Scalia is wrong. Flat out wrong. Remember one word “The Genocide Prevention Right”. The Gooferment can’t kill armed citizens without consequence.

# – # – # – # – #   

POLITICAL: The battle between the administration and the judiciary

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

Crossroads
April 3, 2012 3:42 PM
Appeals court fires back at Obama’s comments on health care case
By    Jan Crawford
Topics    Supreme Court 
Updated 6:55 p.m. ET

*** begin quote ***

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

*** end quote ***

I think this is an epic struggle for the American Experiment.

I’m not sure that this is goign to end well.

# – # – # – # – #