SCOTUS Rulings

[MEJHarrison]

I dated a girl in college who attended a small country church. They had a building that had probably been paid for for decades and the attendance board using showed 65-75 people in attendance on Sunday morning. The Pastor had a day job.

Given that most of the members were working class, it probably barely paid the bills.

Sure. That makes sense. Whether they would get taxed a fair amount or not is hard to say. It could be they have so little income they owe nothing or they could get a tax bill that would be a burden to them. Who can say with a law that doesn't exist?

But it seems obvious that their tax bill would be considerable lower than the larger church. One would presume their tax burden, if any, would be proportional to their income somehow. I would assume it would be something they could handle. Like any poor person, they might have difficult days ahead and have to operate "paycheck to paycheck" and have a crazy strict budget. But that's also something the congregation would be used to themselves or the church wouldn't be so poor to begin with.

Being a poor person sucks. Being a poor church with a tax bill is going to suck. It's the American way of life. Don't be poor and don't expect handouts. Bootstraps and all that other nonsense.

 

[GermanSuplex]

But my point is there would be no taxes from most churches. At the end of the year, if they look like they are going to make a profit, they simply go spend whatever profit they think they are going to have. So, then they will have no tax liability.

Ok?
That’s fine. They can be treated like any other business. I don’t care if a local community church has no tax burden when done fairly.

This mindset is why nothing ever changes. Between the small neighborhood church and the Joel Osteens, there’s still a lot of churches that have enough money to make their pastors millionaires and to build these campuses on several acres of land. They can pay taxes and if they have no burden because they quickly sunk their profits into another building or whatever, fine. That puts people to work. And if not, then the pastor can write a check to the IRS and buy his suit off the rack instead of at some boutique in the Bahamas.

All I’m saying is, let’s try something different. Let’s close the loopholes and treat everyone the same.

The Supreme Court could have forgone the usual word salad justification for their ruling on affirmative action and just ruled "I have a black friend." which pretty much covers it.

I heard an interesting (valid?) point on their decision against letting states run amuck on federal elections. What they did was protect their right to decide elections. So you may want to take off your party hat on that one.

Or it’s an olive branch so they could rule against everything else and then say “See? We’re not radical. We didn’t vote to let people steal elections!”

 

[AG_PhamD]

You mean like wealthy individuals (who avoid paying taxes), and poor people who pay taxes that leave them with nothing?

I think this is highly dependent on who we’re specifically taking about and what constitutes wealth/poor. It is true that some people, but especially companies, have elaborate schemes to minimize taxes. The fundamental problem however is the very basic legal loopholes that are present in our tax code that most of the political class has no intention on changing because it would negatively affect their biggest donors (and perhaps in some cases also would negatively affect their own personal finances).

I live in the tax bracket of paying an high income tax rate and therefore paying a tax bill that’s almost nauseating to think about.. only compounded living in a highly taxed and high cost of living state like Massachusetts. But I don’t have the income level nor the massive accumulation of wealth required to partake in elaborate tax schemes.

This is not to say woe-is-me. I agree someone making less money should be taxed at a lower rate. I’ll even entertain the idea that the ultra-wealthy pulling in millions could pay a slightly lower percent given how large the sum translates to… But if my wife and I are in a tax bracket paying 1/3 of our income to taxes while some of the wealthiest Americans pay 0.1% effective income tax rates, it’s inexcusable and absurd. Slightly lower in my mind does not mean going from the highest tax bracket (37% IIRC) to 0.1%.

It is the left that routinely addresses the low taxation of billionaires, a valid point in my mind. But for some reason they tend to attack the billionaires themselves as if anyone is ever going to intentionally overpay on their taxes… I’m pretty sure the IRS would automatically refund you, suggesting to me a system for overpayment doesn’t even exist. Unfortunately, I do not believe there are many in congress who are actually willing to create meaningful reforms on this.

And while Biden has invested $80B to the IRS and some significant number of employees (what that number is varies greatly depending who you ask, but low end est 20-30k employees). I don’t believe this will have any difference on the ultra wealthy who are already following the tax code allowed by government. I’m not assured by Biden’s assurances that this will only target those making >$400k. I’m concerned this effort will end up going after middle class families who will be seen as easy targets given the population size and reduced ability (if any) to hire expensive tax lawyers.

 

[Roller]

It is the left that routinely addresses the low taxation of billionaires, a valid point in my mind. But for some reason they tend to attack the billionaires themselves as if anyone is ever going to intentionally overpay on their taxes… I’m pretty sure the IRS would automatically refund you, suggesting to me a system for overpayment doesn’t even exist. Unfortunately, I do not believe there are many in congress who are actually willing to create meaningful reforms on this.

I don't fault people for taking advantage of every legal means to reduce their tax liability. But the ultra wealthy are able to pay far less as a proportion of income than you or I because they fund the politicians who write the code, directly or indirectly. So, yes, it is the billionaires themselves who are responsible in many cases. Add to that judges like Thomas and Alito who pal around with the same billionaires but aren't subject to any code of ethics or accountability, and we have a massively corrupt system that perpetuates itself.

 

[diamond.g]

This may be the wrong spot, but I was thinking about this earlier today. Based on what is said in the 14th amendment, how were they able to get Jim Crow laws struck as unconstitutional (and even get Civil Rights Act with its various titles in place)? And why wouldn't the existing court undo the Civil Rights Act (not sayin they should I am just trying to understand).

 

[Alli]

This may be the wrong spot, but I was thinking about this earlier today. Based on what is said in the 14th amendment, how were they able to get Jim Crow laws struck as unconstitutional (and even get Civil Rights Act with its various titles in place)? And why wouldn't the existing court undo the Civil Rights Act (not sayin they should I am just trying to understand).

I have no doubt this is their ultimate goal.

 

[Herdfan]

Looks like Blacks aren't hating the decision on Affirmative Action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/06/whos-okay-with-the-affirmative-action-decision-many-black-americans/

Sorry, I can't provide free reads as I don't have that type of account.

 

[diamond.g]

Looks like Blacks aren't hating the decision on Affirmative Action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/06/whos-okay-with-the-affirmative-action-decision-many-black-americans/

Sorry, I can't provide free reads as I don't have that type of account.

I'm sure a lot of them are tired of being told, or thought to have needed, affirmative action in order for them to get into college or the job they have or whatever.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Clarence Thomas Cited My Work In His Affirmative Action Opinion. Here's What He Got Wrong.​

I, too, was appalled that a book I’d written about the impact of education was used to uphold the Supreme Court justice’s anti-affirmative action argument. We are in a sad moment when cherry-picked information now passes as fact.

Clarence Thomas Cited My Work In His Affirmative Action Opinion. Here's What He Got Wrong.

“I can’t do anything to remove my name from this decision, and that’s frustrating. All I can do is use more words to set the record straight.”

www.huffpost.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

found out the case they ruled for the lady and her website that thew whole thing was jsut a setup. there was no real website business or customer. the whole thing was setup just to get the ruling from the SC, so the lawyer and lady perjured herself made a fake case and the SC fell for hit hook line and sinker.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

found out the case they ruled for the lady and her website that thew whole thing was jsut a setup. there was no real website business or customer. the whole thing was setup just to get the ruling from the SC, so the lawyer and lady perjured herself made a fake case and the SC fell for hit hook line and sinker.

This was found out fairly quickly. I listened to a podcast discussing it and other historical cases that may not have been exactly legit. But this is just the tip of the iceberg in a bigger mission. Start with these small niche cases until you’ve got a big pile of precedent to use to decide a larger decision. But with this current supreme court it’s safe to assume that anything that happened after the early 1800’s doesn’t count.

Something I recently learned was about the case of Hobby Lobby (Private Christian owned store chain if you didn’t know) getting outraged when Obamacare was forcing them to cover contraception with their healthcare which is against their religious belief. The fact is they had been covering contraception for years before and they didn’t care, or possibly didn’t know. Then some activist group brought this to their attention with Obamacare and suddenly it’s a big deal. There are more cases that come before the supreme court by similar methods than we realize.

 

[Herdfan]

so the lawyer and lady perjured herself made a fake case and the SC fell for hit hook line and sinker.

Actually the District Court fell for it. Once it gets to a Circuit/Supreme Courts, the facts are the facts and it is only about how the law was applied.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Actually the District Court fell for it. Once it gets to a Circuit/Supreme Courts, the facts are the facts and it is only about how the law was applied.

fell for it or wanted it to go through?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

When John Roberts Tried To Take Power From The Courts

The Supreme Court’s chief justice was once eager to strip away power from a liberal judiciary. Now, he’s guarding the high court’s power.

www.levernews.com

So back when Roberts was a lawyer in the Reagan administration he actively went after the Supreme Court and said they had too much unchecked power. Now? Not so much. Neat.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

DJ Vance has said if Trump gets a second term he should purge all government positions and fill them with loyalists. If the Supreme Court steps in to stop it he should say “OK, you enforce it.” The fact is, is there is no mechanism to enforce Supreme Court decisions. As proof of that the Supreme Court ordered a southern state (don’t remember which) to create at least 2 majority black districts. They have not and nothing is being done about it.

 

[Cmaier]

DJ Vance has said if Trump gets a second term he should purge all government positions and fill them with loyalists. If the Supreme Court steps in to stop it he should say “OK, you enforce it.” The fact is, is there is no mechanism to enforce Supreme Court decisions. As proof of that the Supreme Court ordered a southern state (don’t remember which) to create at least 2 majority black districts. They have not and nothing is being done about it.

As for your last sentence, we will see. It’s too early to tell.

 

[Alli]

As proof of that the Supreme Court ordered a southern state (don’t remember which) to create at least 2 majority black districts. They have not and nothing is being done about it.

Alabama being Alabama. We’ll see what happens when they submit their plan, which doesn’t conform to the SCOTUS order

 

[Yoused]

The Senate Judiciary Committee sent a bill to the floor which would impose ethical behavior standards and oversight upon SCotUS. Naturally, the Senator from South Carolina is concerned that it will adversely impact RW justices in particular. Odd, that RW justices are more likely to engage in corrupt behavior.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189494854/alabama-redistricting-map-black-districts

Open to hear any reason for this that isn’t racist.

 

[Alli]

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189494854/alabama-redistricting-map-black-districts

Open to hear any reason for this that isn’t racist.

They just want to stay in power and they’ll try any means possible. And if that means taking away votes from a group of people who will obviously vote against them…..