Posted on 06/25/2005 12:34:04 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
The senate thinks they've got the power through the filibuster... However, the President also holds the ability to stop all legislation through the use of the pocket veto. Not as open as the "real" veto. Bills will just die. And there's nothing that any other branch of government can do.
Mark
Or even an adjoining location in the same community. But probably any alternative location would have resulted in a loss of taxes to be collected by the city of New London.
Consider California, for instance. Any reason for so much sprall and so many strip malls? Well, consider that the primary tax source of municipalities in California is the sales tax. So cities love any type of retail business that produces sales taxes. I don't know how Connecticut does it.
A good point you make. I noticed that Commerce Clause ruling and was surprised that Scalia went as he did on it.
I think you may well be right that Scalia would be a more pro-active persuader of other justices in leading the court as chief justice. After the nightmare that Thomas was put through in his confirmation, he has taken a more reserved approach in his work on the court. I don't know whether he would change if he were elevated.
I would like to see the president bring back Miguel Estrada as a nominee for associate justice at the first opportunity. ME was my preference over Gonzales, but I am not as concerned about Gonzales as some of your comments indicate you may be. I think he would be better than O'Connor has been, but most of that is based on hope rather than certainty.
Eminent domain is by no means the worst of the Supreme Court's precedents affecting property rights. In fact, ED is about the best of it. Other decisions have taken property and given it to other private parties, or to the government, with no compensation at all. For example, decisions affecting employers have taken hundreds of millions, even billions, from private parties and given it to others as required by federal statutes to pay for health care and pensions. Also, punitive damages take private property from one party and give it to another private party for no reason other than the court or jury likes one party more than the other. But the S.Ct. refused to take a punitive damages case under the Takings Clause; instead, the Due Process Clause was used to "regulate" the taking.
Great comeback line! BTTT!!
Yoda you are? Jedi you are, ehhh? Hmmmmmm?
Attaboy! I hope the message gets through.
There is an element of seduction that any new AJ would have to stand up to......personal integrity is involved. Souter flunked the test. Wooed and pursued and made much over by Pamela Harriman and her liberal D.C. party-circuit doyennes, Souter grew an extra 25 I.Q. points every time he edged closer to the liberal POV, and Harriman basically fixed him up socially (he had no social life at all -- he was basically a vegetable). He went over to the Dark Side with Kennedy.
Both Souter and Kennedy were also plied with helpful precedents, wrote choleric commentator Bob Novak at the time, by their clerks, guided via back channels by Larry Tribe, dean of Harvard Law. Tribe was using the smart Harvard grads who always get picked for duty as SCOTUS clerks to send messages.....and arguments.......to these justices while they were considering matters before the court. Very no-no. Then, to top it off, he actually met Kennedy for a face-to-face in Vienna during an international judicial congress, to lobby him directly over the reconsideration of Roe vs. Wade. It was grossly unethical, but since it was done in Austria and not the States......
That's how liberals think, and that's how they win. Dirty.
Your sentiment only works if everyone is getting 15 cents an hour.
If some are and some aren't, I challenge you to defend the statement if you were actually making 15 cents an hour.
I agree with your assessment on Alberto Gonzalez (as somewhat of a RINO) ... I don't think this would be a disaster
You will if a Second Amendment case comes up and he sides with the corporatists the way the Court just did with the Boys Downtown in the eminent-domain case.
Unless you're a RiNO and a Downtown Boy yourself, high and dry and out of the rain......and raining on everybody else.
Where I am from, there is no local sales tax.
Maybe a hotel tax in the city of Detroit, but that is it.
Some Michigan cities have income taxes, many more have personal property taxes on businesses, business license fees, etc.
But as far as the rest of the state is concerned, sales tax is not a factor in local government revenue because it doesn't exist.
History indicates that Justice Thomas won't be the nominee. Someone from off the court also eliminates one nomination battle... jmo.
. . . but he went flakey later. I've repressed the exact failure mode and can't cite chapter and verse for you.
Great comeback line! BTTT!!
Well, as long as you understand that I’m not here to score points – if that observation has some bite IMO it’s because it’s true , that IMO it’s foolish to assume there is some foolproof mechanism operating to insure that “what’s good” for the top 100,000 is good for the rest of us, or to assume that to make the point is the “class warfare".
IMO this is especially true when the case in point that the people deciding to fight a war - Democrats and Republicans alike - are the members of one economic strata, and the young men and women fighting it - Democrats and Republicans alike - are mostly members of another.
To me that's literaly "class warfare" - played for keeps.
Well, no, it isn't "class warfare" to ask and even demand, as a condition of perpetual or perpetually renewing consent -- "consent" described as Elaine Scarry described it in her long dissertation on the Second Amendment, distribution of power, and the consent of the People to make war, here:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Scarry1.html
as the equivalent of Locke's "tacit consent", which is not an irrevocable, threshhold consent, that the people in leadership of the country submit themselves to the same degree and kind of sacrifice that is asked of others; that if others are asked to ration gasoline for their Fords and accept the draft levy for their children, that the well-to-do display their rationing stickers on their Packards and Pierce Arrows and send their children off to join the OSS and take Wild Bill Donovan's chances behind enemy lines, or do something useful helping Commander Safford decrypt the Japanese "Red" Codes.
And above all, not to carry on as if it were just another day at the office, when other people's husbands and sons are afield with the armies, and be seen conspicuously asking for seconds of creme brulee' at an outrageously expensive restaurant while somebody's son is chewing on an MRE "food bar" in the dark somewhere, standing guard against jihadis.
Very interesting. I imagined as much, but didn't know the particulars. Tribe is a no good, for certain. JMO
Principles of classical economics (also known as supply side) see the world from the ground up; i.e., from the view of the individual with no capital except his labor and intellect. The principles are the same for everyone, all the way to the top. If a person begins to focus on consumption rather than production, his capital will flow away to another producer regardless of whether he is poor or rich.
It is demand-side economics (Keynesianism and monetarism) that is truly top-down, because its theory is developed from the view of the central planner.
The sales tax is a better tax for collection and enforcement, and for economic growth, than the income tax. But at least Michigan cities don't have the conflict of interest of managing land planning while getting all their funds from retail.
Good point, but at least Thomas is a known quantity and the Dems can't smear him anymore than they already did. However, I'm not sure Thomas would agree to appear at another Senate hearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.