volfanjustin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 22,655
- Likes
- 23,618
LMAO! I’m paying plenty all I’m required to pay and not a single cent more. Feel free to donate your entire paralegal salary if you feel that strongly about it girl. But I’m not interested in your desire to fund bigger government.Why am I not surprised that fairness, equity and the like play no role in your assessment.
LMAO! I’m paying plenty all I’m required to pay and not a single cent more. Feel free to donate your entire paralegal salary if you feel that strongly about it girl. But I’m not interested in your desire to fund bigger government.
Surprise, surprise. The GOP tax cut is not having many of the promised effects. Read full thread.
Anything that reduces my federal tax burden, including clubbing baby seals and selling the oil and fur to augment the fed coffers, is good tax policy. If I’m gonna pay more, I want it in my state of residence. Screw the federal taxation theft.No one is saying you should pay more than you're required to pay. The issue is how much should we require people to pay, given their economic condition and standing. Presumably you'd be in favor of a tax law that exempted grumpy old men from paying taxes since that would exempt you and be in your narrow self-interest. But you must admit that wouldn't be good tax policy or fair, right?
Anything that reduces my federal tax burden, including clubbing baby seals and selling the oil and fur to augment the fed coffers, is good tax policy. If I’m gonna pay more, I want it in my state of residence. Screw the federal taxation theft.
That’s one way to look at it. My view is leaving the pieces of silver that I earned in my pocket where they belong and keeping you money grabbing big government libs the hell outta my pocket as more accurate. But I guess if you’re gonna keep people dependent on your big government policies you’ve got to grab that money from somewhere amirite?Whatever puts a few more pieces of silver in your pocket. Amirite?
Pass the FAIRtax | FAIRtax.orgEquality, everyone pays the same.
That’s one way to look at it. My view is leaving the pieces of silver that I earned in my pocket where they belong and keeping you money grabbing big government libs the hell outta my pocket as more accurate. But I guess if you’re gonna keep people dependent on your big government policies you’ve got to grab that money from somewhere amirite?
That’s one way to look at it. My view is leaving the pieces of silver that I earned in my pocket where they belong and keeping you money grabbing big government libs the hell outta my pocket as more accurate. But I guess if you’re gonna keep people dependent on your big government policies you’ve got to grab that money from somewhere amirite?
Is it in yours?...If it’s a literary reference all I could guess is maybe Scrooge. I seriously doubt you’d be making a Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver reference I don’t think that would be in your wheel house.
LMAO! I’m paying plenty all I’m required to pay and not a single cent more. Feel free to donate your entire paralegal salary if you feel that strongly about it girl. But I’m not interested in your desire to fund bigger government.
It got shot down by SCOTUS but why was Indiana trying to repeal the Pence law that the dead fetus has to be cremated or buried???@Velo Vol
SIAP:
Supreme Court declined to take up the 7th Circuit’s reversal of Indiana’s ban on abortions when the provider is aware that the choice to abort is based on gender, race, or disability.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf
The Court took up another issue regarding the disposition of fetal remains. Planned Parenthood only ever contested that issue on Rational Basis grounds.
Sotomayor was noted to favor declining this issue, but did not write. Ginsburg wrote to say that the rational basis standard was not appropriate and the Court shouldn’t take up an issue to say “sorry we’re bound by the party’s litigation strategy, if they had argued it the right way, Casey would require it to be struck down as well.” (The 7th circuit applied Casey.)
Declining the second issue was based on procedural precedent. It’s a novel issue that has only been considered by one circuit.
Thomas wrote separately to concur and say that Casey and Roe are insufficient guidance for lower courts in determining the scope of the right to an abortion and eventually the court needs to address the scope. Nobody joined.
Seems like a signal that the Court is not looking for any old reason to overturn Roe/Casey and even Thomas sort of indicates that they’re going to limit the scope rather than uphold these sweeping restrictions.
Looks like Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia are about to waste a bunch of tax payer money passing and defending laws that have no shot.