@bern_identity How many jobs get lost when they have to liquidate assets to pay the tax?
English
Float Rider
6.4K posts
Used the Forbes real-time billionaire list for net worth:forbes.com/real-time-bill…
English
@ProsecutorsPod Unlikely that a federal head tax would be constitutional. And it still leaves you in the place that a state can't legalize an illegal alien.
English
@FloatRider I'm not sure this domicile argument has the power the SG thinks it does. I would expect that in just about every other legal context involving domicile, someone present in the state with the intent to stay would be subject to that law. Say there's a tax on domicile residents.
English
Listening to the Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship. Starting with Dred Scott and how the 14th Amendment addresses that case. Also can you be a citizen of a state but not the nation? Tough questions out the gate by Thomas.
English
@dfossier There's a whole finance section in the OPSB and apparently none of them can do math. AMAZING!!!!
English
@ProsecutorsPod But as a matter of law, none of those discretionary actions preclude you from being removed by later actions. California can declare you a resident of CA, not a citizen of the US. DACA is not law, it is at best a changeable policy. Illegal presence is by nature unstable.
English
@FloatRider If you've been living in California for 20 years, through varying levels of enforcement, with the state saying you're a citizen of California and at various times the federal executive using prosecutorial discretion not to remove you, it's hard to say your place isn't fixed.
English
@ProsecutorsPod Domicile is predicated on lawful presence. If you are in a place unlawfully, there is no way for you to consider that place to be fixed, because you are always subject to being removed.
English
Also, why can't you have a domicile in a state you are in illegally?
English
@dfossier I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But if a ruling is totally unlawful, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate, and I believe that, like you, the Trump DOJ is just stumping its feet and whining about it, not litigating in an effective way.
English
@FloatRider These judges are issuing flagrantly illegal rulings.
English
Oh a judge that looks like this? What a surprise the ruling is completely ridiculous. I wonder what's going on here...
ABC News@ABC
The Trump administration must restore the legal status of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States legally through a Biden-era pathway, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. abcnews.link/iAn9X3o
English
We have gone from "well, maybe if you squint at the evidence you can make an argument the President is right" to "all True Originalists believe the President is right" at a breakneck pace.
Sometimes, just sometimes, the long-held, intuitive answer is the right one.
Eric W.@EWess92
Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue.
English
@dfossier Read some of the crap DOJ is putting out in the lower courts that doesn't address why the district judge is out of bounds. I get that they intentionally want some of it to get to the Supremes, but at least try on some things in the District Courts.
English
@FloatRider You aren’t properly accounting for communist judges, who will fragrantly violate the law if it means, they can exercise their Trump derangement syndrome.
English
@Christo23732379 @scotus_wire Anderson was a unanimous per curiam on the judgment, with differences on reasoning. It was not a majority issued before dissents.
English
@Christo23732379 @scotus_wire Show me an example when a non-unanimous majority opinion was published without the dissent.
English
There is now one case remaining from the October sitting: the challenge to race-based redistricting under the VRA.
Justice Alito is also the only justice who has not written for this sitting.
English
@dfossier But if they had better arguments and lawyers, she wouldn't need to take everything to the Supreme Court. And you aren't counting the things they give up on before the Supreme Court, like student loan forgiveness. I don't want Dems in control, I want Reps to be competent.
English
@FloatRider Pam Bondi is undefeated at the SCOTUS. You are incredibly uninformed.
English
@dfossier Most judges get overruled over something at some time in their career. That says almost nothing. The DOJ in this Trump term has stepped on more rakes than you can count, because they show up with bad arguments or lawyers that they didn't vet properly.
English
@FloatRider The Supreme Court has already ruled opposite this terrorist judge. You have no clue what you're talking about.
English
@quactuary @GsuGrinding It wouldn't be overturned. If would be a decision stating that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't necessarily include the children of those who break the law to enter the country or are in the country temporarily with no intention to reside here.
English
@GsuGrinding I really can’t imagine a scenario where birthright citizenship is overturned. It’s just too radical for both Kavanaugh and Roberts. Not tbe legacy either want.
That said, if I hear Jackson say, “I don’t understand” one more time I will vomit.
English
@GsuGrinding @EditrixLane They aren't good questioners. They both pontificate and add a virtual question mark at the end.
English
@EditrixLane For me Jackson and Sotomayor are very good questioners if you already agree with their view (I usually do) but Kagan can actually make a bad argument look bad to fair minded people who were initially inclined to buy the bad argument.
English
@JoelKatz @bendreyfuss Because the Constitution. And the price of something shouldn't be dependent on whether the current government likes it or not.
English
@bendreyfuss That makes no sense. If the government can't punish the speech with civil liability, then why would the insurance market price the malpractice risk higher?
English
That Supreme Court ruling about the Gay-Away therapists seems right to me on free speech grounds, but I also I imagine these cranks must have a very hard time getting malpractice insurance?
English
@JSODonoghue The most likely explanation for the delay is that the dissenters are slow walking the dissent. Callais is the last October case. Alito is the only justice who hasn't written an October majority, so odds are he has that opinion.
English
As I recall, Louisiana politicians believed they had "inside information" that this decision would be released early ... in December, then in January and then in February.
Well so much for that. #lalege
Piper Hutchinson@ByPiperHutch
No SCOTUS decision on Louisiana v. Callais (the Louisiana redistricting case with implications for the VRA) today. That means it will likely be at least mid-April before there is a ruling. #lalege #lagov
English
@MilenaAmit @rushicrypto Renters are paying it because most property owners are smart enough to factor the cost of property taxes into the rent charged.
English
@rushicrypto Do renters and the public who visit that area for work/fun pay property tax to maintain those roads and public services? NO. They do not. Why should the property owners be singled out and punished financially?
English
I’m very confused about the number of people who think “property tax” is a sales tax on you home rather than taxes to pay for public services you use every day.
“I paid off my home why do i still pay property taxes?!?!?”
Oh, did you also stop using the roads and libraries and sidewalks and parks? Not worried about fires anymore?
English
@sumbolus @smallgovlizard @sunnyright Roe was never really settled. It wasn't unanimous. It was challenged consistently from the moment the ink dried. The penumbras and emanations were fading from day one. Its supporters were happy for the Court to legislate through litigation and never codified it.
English
@smallgovlizard @sunnyright Remind me again how it was “impossible” to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I’ll wait.
English
Even if SCOTUS were to change 14th Amendment doctrine, there’s a less than zero percent chance they’d apply it retroactively to strip citizenship.
White Papers Policy Institute@WhitePapersPol
If SCOTUS rules sensibly the next fight will be to denaturalize ALL of the children of illegal aliens. It doesn't matter if they're 5 minutes old or 55 years old. No one born to an illegal alien should retain American citizenship. It would cover 7.5-10 million people.
English