What do you mean by this comment? The fact the court might hear a case on the premise that it would stymy future legislation is completely unorthodox and not within the purview of the court. That is overreach, by definition.
I mean that it's usually right-wingers whining about overreach, but when it's their assholes doing it for their fascist agenda all of a sudden they go silent, which is (unsurprisingly) flagrant hypocrisy.
They have to protect their fiscal interests. How else will they go on extravagant trips without owing a thing?
I grow to hate my home country more every day.
Setting aside how absolutely corrupt it would be for the court to hear this case let alone ruling in a predictable pro-business decision to explicitly kneecap future wealth tax legislation that doesn't even exist yet, I have to say that the author of this article has a real mastery.
"This is no idle threat,” the Moores said in their petition for review, referring to a federal wealth tax. They cited proposals by the Biden administration and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden to tax billionaires based on their assets, none of which have passed Congress.
"THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH," said people who would still vote for Trump even though his policies hurt them personally, so they're reframing it all as fear-mongering against democrats whose proposals have never gained enough traction since 2017 to ever come close to becoming legislation.
"THE DANGER IS REAL," crowed people rich enough to own tigers on their estate about puppies and kitties they saw painted in a poster.
Yeah this one is almost scarier than any other for the precedent it sets. While most of the actual decisions this term were bad but par for the course of a conservative majority court (with a few pleasant surprises like rejecting racial gerrymandering, dismissing independent legislature theory, and reaffirming Native adoptions) this case was uniquely dangerous for being just conjured from thin air. The idea that you can take an issue to court over something that was proven to be entirely hypothetical prepares the way for more ready-made cases designed to create a particular legal outcome.
And stop engaging in political gamesmanship where they purposely tie their retirements to Republican Presidents among other GOP fuckery. John Roberts, if he actually cared about the integrity of the court, would resign now so Biden could appoint his replacement and try to reverse the politicization of the court.
To borrow a phrase from Roberts, the best way to stop criticism that the court is “going beyond the proper role of the judiciary” is for the court to stop going beyond the proper role of the judiciary.
This, right here, is my favorite line of the article.
Elena Kagan and Stepben Breyer - jews - make up 0.2% of the US but have 22% of the Supreme Court. A 10000% over representation.
Jackson chick - affirmative action gone wild, crazy sjw appointed by the retard in chief who cries Racism every second word. And gets butthurt when the real G who overcame adversity tells her to stop BSing
If libs got more butthurt they’d be bleeding from both their pussy AND their butthole lmao
First of all, Jews make up 2.4% of the US. Second, Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected. They are not meant to be representative of population demographics. That's the entire reason they aren't elected.
Maybe you should retake your high school civics and US Govt classes, it's pretty clear your susceptibility to Russian troll farms has eroded what little understanding of the way the government is meant to work and replaced it with an irrational fear of anything that doesn't walk, talk and look like you.
newrepublic.com
Active