Green Habit wrote:Guess everyone knows the results of the final cases by now.
On the student loan forgiveness case, the major questions doctrine is really, really bad, and is going to be an escape hatch for this SCOTUS to interfere with actions of Democratic administrations they don't like, while letting things slide on actions of Republican administrations. I'm really conflicted on the practical merits of student loan forgiveness, but the legal case that Roberts made here looks weaksauce.
I'm not too concerned with SCOTUS opting to not play standing games when the underlying action is unconstitutional.
Green Habit wrote:
On the web developer case...this one of course cuts deep for me since it's my profession. The creative aspects of the profession really do lend to me seeing it as expressive that the First Amendment protects. Gorsuch's opinion seemed satisfactory to me on first blush. But boy, was Sotomayor pissed at that opinion, to the point that she dissented from the bench for over 20 minutes. That seems way over the top to me. Then again, I've always felt odd about public accommodation law, as it can cut the other way, as everyone can think of utterly despicable people they would not want to do business with. Tough questions to deal with...
After her awful dissent in the Harvard case, Sotomayor's professional image is not having a good week:
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
blueviper wrote:there has to be a way to simplify the entire US tax code.
Easy:
1.). Lie all gross income values on the x axis of a graph
2.). Create a y axis from zero to 35%
3.). At median (the exact 50% gross income value) start an elliptical curve that goes from zero at the median to 35 at the highest income, so the bottom half pays a zero rate and richest person pays 35%.
4.). The IRS sends you that number in the mail and the number value of your estimated refund or deficit.
Thats it. That’s the federal tax you owe. No deductions. No SALT. No “if you insulated your bathroom on a Thursday..”. Just that number. Just your gross income, plotted on a curve, all the math done by the IRS.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
blueviper wrote:there has to be a way to simplify the entire US tax code.
Easy:
1.). Lie all gross income values on the x axis of a graph
2.). Create a y axis from zero to 35%
3.). At median (the exact 50% gross income value) start an elliptical curve that goes from zero at the median to 35 at the highest income, so the bottom half pays a zero rate and richest person pays 35%.
4.). The IRS sends you that number in the mail and the number value of your estimated refund or deficit.
Thats it. That’s the federal tax you owe. No deductions. No SALT. No “if you insulated your bathroom on a Thursday..”. Just that number. Just your gross income, plotted on a curve, all the math done by the IRS.
Don't forget to abolish the payroll tax.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Sandra Day O'Connor passed away. I feel like GH could do an interesting alternate history where she doesn't retire during Bush's presidency and Roe v. Wade never gets overturned.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Court watchers: I don’t have a lot of background knowledge here. Is “I don’t think there is a good rationale for my argument. It does seem odd,” actually a really good argument to make before the Supreme Court? Or am I listening to something funny?
McParadigm wrote:Court watchers: I don’t have a lot of background knowledge here. Is “I don’t think there is a good rationale for my argument. It does seem odd,” actually a really good argument to make before the Supreme Court? Or am I listening to something funny?
Thanks for reminding me, just put it on. Didn't hear what you're referring to, though.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
I actually listened to the last 2 hours or so of the question session last night (for me) and I thought that the anti-Trump lawyer (Murray) spoke incredibly well considering the way he was questioned. Perhaps I was just impressed with the way he sounded under fire - he didn't miss too many beats and seemed incredibly knowledgeable tbh. I had to laugh when one of the Justices talked about how if they knock Trump off the ballot they likely disenfranchise a huge number of US voters and he came back with "well, yeah, but Trump actually tried to disenfranchise over 80 million US voters who voted for Biden". Lol.
I couldn't quite grasp the justice's constant questions of "what are we meant to do" or "if we rule this way it will lead to these other potential issues". Surely the Supreme Court's job is to be the biggest dog in the land and determine cases that come before them. If it turns to shit, follow the process. If that process comes back to the Supreme Court down the track, then so be it.
To me the US Constitution is fraught with a basic issue that in creating specific inalienable rights for people you almost can't avoid stepping on other people's rights. It's just gonna happen. Your right to free speech will often step all over my right to quiet enjoyment of my life. Your right to bear arms will step on my right to feel safe and unthreatened when going about my daily business. It's not a perfect document for all time and situations - its why you have amendments, no? My point being, surely the Supreme Court is there to take such cases, parse the language of the Constitution as it is and rule from there. If shit gets weird the machinery turns (slowly) to correct.
But yeah, I appreciate he's flogging a bit of a dead horse here and there's very little likelihood that this gets up.
I also enjoyed listening to Ketanji Jackson push back on the Trump lawyer's claim that it wasn't an insurrection because an insurrection has to be an "an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence." She commented that "And so the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?". Cracked me up. I only wish she'd said something along the lines of "Well, I was here and if you ask me it was pretty wild" (nudge nudge, wink wink).
Higgs wrote:I couldn't quite grasp the justice's constant questions of "what are we meant to do" or "if we rule this way it will lead to these other potential issues". Surely the Supreme Court's job is to be the biggest dog in the land and determine cases that come before them. If it turns to shit, follow the process. If that process comes back to the Supreme Court down the track, then so be it.
Maintaining stability in the law is usually a pretty big concern for the Supreme Court. Cases set precedents and they should absolutely be concerned about where a decision will lead. When the Court sacrifices that long view for result-driven expediency it can lead to bad outcomes.
Higgs wrote:To me the US Constitution is fraught with a basic issue that in creating specific inalienable rights for people you almost can't avoid stepping on other people's rights. It's just gonna happen. Your right to free speech will often step all over my right to quiet enjoyment of my life. Your right to bear arms will step on my right to feel safe and unthreatened when going about my daily business. It's not a perfect document for all time and situations - its why you have amendments, no? My point being, surely the Supreme Court is there to take such cases, parse the language of the Constitution as it is and rule from there. If shit gets weird the machinery turns (slowly) to correct.
I think this is a misunderstanding of the role of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't create or establish any rights, rather it limits the power of the federal government to infringe on some rights that people possess.
The tension that you're describing isn't unique to the U.S. Constitution, it's the tension inherent in any liberal form of government: the purpose of government is to protect people's natural rights, but by consenting to be governed we (implicitly) agree to some minimal limitations of rights to ensure the protections of our rights.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
I appreciate the response and accept that my take was very basic for sure. I also accept that the US situation is little different to any other democratic situation wrt rights and how they operate against governing documents.
I just wonder how true your suggestion that people accept any even minor "limitations to their rights" is though. Seems to me that's so often what you hear being shouted about - "my rights". And in effect the constitution then goes on to place higher importance on specific rights (bear arms, free speech) than the natural rights not specified in the constitution.
I still believe that you guys focus far too much on the dumber rights as a result.
Higgs wrote:I appreciate the response and accept that my take was very basic for sure. I also accept that the US situation is little different to any other democratic situation wrt rights and how they operate against governing documents.
I just wonder how true your suggestion that people accept any even minor "limitations to their rights" is though. Seems to me that's so often what you hear being shouted about - "my rights". And in effect the constitution then goes on to place higher importance on specific rights (bear arms, free speech) than the natural rights not specified in the constitution.
I still believe that you guys focus far too much on the dumber rights as a result.
