"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote
- quote -

Changing the law can be up to the people (via the
Constitutional Amendment process); the courts; to some
extent executive branch agencies; and so on and so forth
blah blah pedantry. We disagree.

Your generalization on Thomas is noted. This has become
political and off-topic.

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Since this has gotten too far from taxes and is quite off topic,
let's end this discusion.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Elle" <honda.lioness[at]spamnocox.net> wrote:
- quote -

There are certain conventions in the law that are generally accepted as
important in our legal system. One is that there be predictability in
the meaning of our laws. Except when an established interpretation of
a law is manifestly harmful to society, changing the law is up to the
legislature, not to the court.

Additionally, as you say, times change and the interpretations of laws
change based on society's beliefs and past experience.

But Thomas seems to reject all of that. He rejects predictability, he
rejects the concept of changing rules only when necessary. And he
rejects the idea that times change and that rules should change, basing
his decisions on what he thinks the rule should have been in 1789.

- quote -

Certainly on occasion other justices have voted to over turn precedent.
But most often they attempt to follow precedent and distinguish cases
based on other facts or applicable laws. They believe in
predictability and don't throw out the whole system based on their
beliefs that they are the one true source of knowledge, rather than
interpreters of it.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Katie wrote:
I think that's one reason why J.
- quote -

It's probably too late to move this good dialog regarding a Supreme
Court justice over to misc.legal.moderated, but if the replies not
related to taxes continue, please consider putting an "OT: blah blah"
notation (OT = "off topic") at the beginning of the subject line to
alert readers.

Yours for making the moderator's lives easier,

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote
- quote -

To suggest a Justice ignore his or her own logic and
interpretations and defer to others is inconsistent with why
we have nine Justices; judicial tenure; a multi-leveled
federal court system; etc. Stare decisis is a strongly
preferred guide, but history shows that the Court can and
will, after careful consideration, overturn past decisions.
The law ultimately reflects society's mores, which do
change, surely as you know.

One cannot single out one Justice for not following stare
decisis (from time to time) when so many other Justices have
done likewise, and often to good effect, given our bumbling
society. If one has a problem with Justice XYZ, then the
solution is to elect a President and a Senate who will
nominate and confirm ABC. The problem has never been J.
Thomas but instead all those who supported Bush 1 and those
senators who voted to confirm Thomas, which means the
problem lies in those who backed Bush 1 and these senators.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <Xns9AA6508808756avocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4> ,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:


- quote -

something they agree with is up for decision. Otherwise, many (no matter
which precendent one is holding sancrosanct from whichever political
view) precedent is merely getting in the way of Making Needed Changes.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Rich Carreiro <rlc-news[at]rlcarr.com> wrote:
- quote -

In my opinion he has no respect for precedent because he won't follow
any rule or ruling that doesn't agree with his personal view of
constitutional jurisprudence. It doesn't matter that something has
been an accepted rule for many years. It doesn't matter that great
thinkers believe the Constitution means something that conflicts with
Thomas's ideas. To him he's the only one in the world whose opinion
counts.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On May 21, 3:30*pm, Rich Carreiro <rlc-n...[at]rlcarr.com> wrote:
- quote -


This is what Justice Thomas says in _Davis_, quoting himself from his
dissents in other cases including _United Haulers_:

"I agree with the Court that Kentucky's differential tax scheme is
constitutional. But rather than apply a body of doctrine that 'has no
basis in the Constitution and has proved unworkable in practice,' I
would entirely 'discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause
jurisprudence.'"

This is not disrespect for precedent in general; it's disrespect for
precedents that, in his mind, do not comport with the Constitution.
Actually, Scalia doesn't believe the Constitution supports the dormant
commerce clause either; however, he will follow specific precedents,
as he said in _Quill_ and says again in _Davis_.

Katie in San Diego


'

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> writes:

- quote -

Has he actually said that, or has he said that he has
no respect for precedent when it conflicts with what
the Constitution says? Which is a completely different
statement and attitude than what you ascribe to him.

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-news[at]rlcarr.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Katie <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

But if out of state farmers buy local property and farm it, the fact
that they are not residents should not disqualify them from such
subsidies based on their in-state farms. It's like state universities
that charge residents a lower tuition than non-residents. But once a
student becomes a resident (e.g. by living in the state for one year),
he must be eligible for the lower tuition.

- quote -

Personally I think Thomas has some odd ideas of the Constitution and
the role of the Supreme Court. For example he has no respect for
precedent - he's said as much - even though that is the basis of the
common law system.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On May 21, 10:59*am, se...[at]panix.com (Seth) wrote:
- quote -


Yes, fine lines are drawn here. The Court disapproves of "economic
protectionism" affecting the private markets, but when the state
itself is a party to the transaction, it allows more leeway. The most
interesting part of the decision, actually, is the many partial and
total dissents. The Court is certainly not all in agreement on these
issues. Seven of them came to the same conclusion, but not all for
the same reasons. The decision is available here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...friend=nytimes

It's also true that, to extend Seth's example, there would be no
constitutional problem with the state providing a grant or price
support payment directly to its corn farmers. It's only when a state
attempts to protect its own producers by means of the tax system that
it gets into constitutional trouble. I think that's one reason why J.
Thomas says he would never apply the dormant commerce clause under any
circumstances. As far as he's concerned, the states can do whatever
they want under the commerce clause as long as Congress doesn't enact
a law preventing it.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <Xns9AA561EDDE8DCavocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4> ,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

But if a state taxed corn imported from other states, and not corn
grown in itself, that would be unconstitutional discrimination, even
though it provides an actual cost/benefit to farmers in that state
(and thereby to the state itself by increasing collections of state
income tax).

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

I didn't find it surprising at all. When a state exempts its own bond
interest from taxation, it benefits financially by encouraging more
people to buy bonds at lower interest. If they were to exempt bond
interest from other states, they would be losing financially. It's not
considered discrimination if it's related to an actual cost/benefit to
the state.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On May 19, 1:36�pm, Mark Bole <ma...[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -

Based on the Case Number 06-666, the decision by the Supreme Court was
predictable!

- quote -

the violation of the Constitution. That should come as no big
surpise!

Cheers,

WDK

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On May 19, 10:36*am, Mark Bole <ma...[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -


Thanks for posting that, Mark.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

The Supreme Court has upheld the ability of states to exempt their own
municipal bonds from taxation of interest while taxing those of other
states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/bu...-bizcourt.html

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >