What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Kepler said:
They actually did change their mind on 2A in Heller. Prior to that it wasn't an individual right of possession for sh-t and giggles. Proof that if a special interest pushes money at a party long enough, their nominees will toe the partisan line and Constitution be d-mned. It's an invented right, and one "Strict Constructionists" are OK with because ha ha hypocrites.
Click to expand...

And 58 years from Plessy to Brown.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Might help revitalize brick and mortars over time.

Why not simply apply a sales tax for which the seller was located? If for instance it's Amazon use the rate of the location of it's US headquarters. Now some companies may try to game the system by relocating to a state with a lower tax rate, but some do that already. I know it's not quite this simplistic but I don't it has to be that complicate either.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Slap Shot said:
Might help revitalize brick and mortars over time.

Why not simply apply a sales tax for which the seller was located? If for instance it's Amazon use the rate of the location of it's US headquarters. Now some companies may try to game the system by relocating to a state with a lower tax rate, but some do that already. I know it's not quite this simplistic but I don't it has to be that complicate either.
Click to expand...

Maybe...more probably a speed bump. The move online is one strong trend.

I'm guessing the reason the tax works that way is that purchases are technically made where the consumer is...which is the nature of sales tax. That just coincidentally also avoids the scenario where all pureplays move to a zero sales tax state - Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire - and other states are forced to abolish it to keep the players they have.
 
Slap Shot said:
Might help revitalize brick and mortars over time.

Why not simply apply a sales tax for which the seller was located? If for instance it's Amazon use the rate of the location of it's US headquarters. Now some companies may try to game the system by relocating to a state with a lower tax rate, but some do that already. I know it's not quite this simplistic but I don't it has to be that complicate either.
Click to expand...

Considering all major retailers are probably collecting sales taxes in virtually all jurisdictions already, it's not.

It will hit the smaller to medium size retailers hardest, but it's also something that off the shelf tax software should be able to handle pretty freaking easily. Plug in a zip code of a buyer, spit out the applicable tax rate.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

“The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search and seize cell phone records, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 decision.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393629-supreme-court-rules-law-enforcement-needs-warrant-to-search
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
“The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search and seize cell phone records, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 decision.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...rules-law-enforcement-needs-warrant-to-search
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe this was a 5-4 decision, until I read more into it. "Cell phone records" is extremely misleading. This was about location data from cell towers. That being said, I don't mind a decision that we err on the side of requiring a warrant.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Kepler said:
Ah, Christian values.
Click to expand...

The jurors are pure scum, but it's hard to find major fault with the courts:

The principle laid down in Peña-Rodriguez with regard to race, Rhines insisted, should logically extend to sexual orientation, as well.

But the Supreme Court, it seems, has no appetite to consider that question. Its hesitation to expand Peña-Rodriguez to gay defendants is regrettable but understandable. The justices grappled with precisely this question during oral arguments in Peña-Rodriguez Chief Justice John Roberts asked Jeffrey Fisher, who represented the defendant, why his argument was limited to race and did not extend to sexual orientation. Fisher responded, in short, that racism is uniquely evil, so the court can create “race-specific rules” in the jury context; “we do not,” he said, “leave any stones unturned when it comes to race.” He added, though, that the justices might later extend the rule to sex and beyond.

The court has not yet had an opportunity to take up Fisher’s offer and extend Peña-Rodriguez to sex. Perhaps that’s for the best; after issuing a major decision that unsettles precedent, the justices prefer to sit back and watch it percolate in the lower courts before revisiting and revising it. Their refusal to hear Rhines, which was apparently unanimous, suggests the court isn’t ready to clamp down further on bias in the jury room. That’s terrible news for Rhines, and for other gay people who face homophobic juries. But it doesn’t forestall a future court from returning to Peña-Rodriguez and broadening it to protect gay defendants.
Click to expand...
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

“ The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider whether it wants to strike down GOP-drawn districts in North Carolina, after the lower court initially found the map to be racial gerrymanders.”
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
“ The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider whether it wants to strike down GOP-drawn districts in North Carolina, after the lower court initially found the map to be racial gerrymanders.”
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure of what the court's angle is here. It could either say 1) all gerrymandering except for race related issues is completely legal, or 2) we're setting a standard for what is and isn't legal. Instead they're in some weird holding pattern by their own design. I think there's one more case left from Texas before them but that's more a racial issue (in this case diluting Hispanic representation).
 
Rover said:
I'm not 100% sure of what the court's angle is here. It could either say 1) all gerrymandering except for race related issues is completely legal, or 2) we're setting a standard for what is and isn't legal. Instead they're in some weird holding pattern by their own design. I think there's one more case left from Texas before them but that's more a racial issue (in this case diluting Hispanic representation).
Click to expand...

I think their angle is that they set precedent last week regarding who has standing to challenge voting districts. They're ordering the lower court to reconsider their case with that new precedent in mind. Basically, "We punted our cases on technical issues. You need to take another look at your case, because you may find that you're now obliged to similarly punt."
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Reading Robert's opinion now. Court basically says that President's have unlimited power as long as they can properly lie about why they are doing something, because Courts will not look beyond the facial reason given.

Which is utter horse hockey. Not surprising in the least, but still shiat.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

unofan said:
Reading Robert's opinion now. Court basically says that President's have unlimited power as long as they can properly lie about why they are doing something, because Courts will not look beyond the facial reason given.

Which is utter horse hockey. Not surprising in the least, but still shiat.
Click to expand...

So, it's up to Congress to check him. And they won't cause they're too busy sucking him off.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Again, I'm pretty certain this would have happened the same way if the Dems got elected. ;) That's why I stayed home smoking dope on election day while tweeting "there's NO difference between the parties" all night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top