Posted on 12/06/2016 9:38:00 PM PST by JOHN ADAMS
For more than six years, the Internal Revenue Service has been trying to fend off accusations that its process for granting tax-exempt status discriminated against applicants expressing political views at odds with those of the Obama administration. This discrimination against political viewpoints the Democrats disapprove of is a clear, even astonishing, violation of the First Amendment. For that reason, the IRS has lost many more of these battles than it has won. It's lost battles not only in court against the victimized non-profits; it's even lost against the Treasury Department's own inspector general, which conducted a detailed study and concluded that many of the most serious accusations of discrimination were true.
In its court battles the IRS has been represented by the Justice Department, whose job it is to represent federal agencies when they are sued. No one will be shocked to learn that under the Obama administration, and Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, DOJ lawyers have used every tool at their disposal to defeat the IRS's accusers even when those accusers are agreeing with Treasury's inspector general. That means that, according to the Obama administration's own inspector general report, those victimized non-profits are right in claiming that they were discriminated against because of their political views.
That litigation strategy needs to change.
Upon President Trump's inauguration, the Justice Department will get a new boss: Jeff Sessions, President Trump's nominee for Attorney General. The moment he takes office, General Sessions should direct the Justice Department lawyers—all of whom report to him—to change their litigation stance to reflect an important adage about how government lawyers should do business: "the government wins when justice is done."
It's time to see that justice is done in these cases.
Up until now, the government's strategy has been to make the IRS cases take as long as possible and to resist every demand for discovery—the process by which litigants can request that their adversaries produce documents, or provide testimony, revealing what was really going on inside the IRS.
I represent the plaintiff in one of these cases—Z STREET v. Koskinen—which challenges the IRS's six year delay in processing the application for tax-exempt status by an organization whose views on the Middle East were at odds with President Obama's. In discovery, we've asked for information about how the IRS went about deciding what to do with (and to) our organization. But the IRS has produced virtually nothing that sheds light on its decision-making process. Other organizations in court against the IRS have been given the same treatment by the Justice Department's litigation teams.
All of the members of those government lawyer teams report to the U.S. Attorney General. That means that when the new sheriff arrives in town he can give new orders on how these cases ought to be handled.
Attorney General Sessions should direct these lawyers to stop resisting discovery, and to stop trying to prevent the litigants—and the public—from finding out what the IRS was really doing to all of these organizations for all these years. This is not a matter of political payback, like the question whether Hillary Clinton ought to be prosecuted for what many think are her misdeeds, at the State Department and with the Clinton Foundation. It's just a matter of letting the truth be told. Z STREET, like many of the plaintiffs in the other cases against the IRS, is not seeking money damages. We just want to know the truth about what the IRS was doing to us, and why, and at whose direction.
Another Supreme Court justice, a hero of the left, knew exactly what was called for in these cases: "Sunlight," Justice Louis Brandeis said long ago, "is the best of disinfectants." The nation, and the IRS itself, needs sunlight to shine on the internal doings at that agency. And letting in that light is an easy way for the new administration to fulfill one of its key promises to the electorate.
The government and the people will win when the sun is let in. Mr. Attorney General Sessions, that should happen at 12:01 pm on Friday, January 20, 2017.
Too much information. Just be ruthless with them and take names afterwards.
I don’t want it to stop—I want it done against all liberals, now.
This is a great tool to with which to torment Democrats.
Fire any and everyone involved.
Or we could have a flat tax and elminate the IRS. Or we could elminate all campaign finance laws. Why settle formthe snack not biting you when you could kill the snake?
Best way to stop the IRS from targeting Conservative political groups is to abolish the IRS. While we’re at it, repealing the 16th Amendment would be even better.
The first order of business needs to be the repeal of Roe v. Wade, after an appropriate SCOTUS becomes available, with immediate prosecution of baby body part dealers. That is already illegal.
They used it against us... and the MSM didn't give a damn. Let's see if they care when it's used against democrats.
I think they need more than a new boss at Justice and the IRS, but a lot of new staff. Staff who cooperated with the old regime showed that their loyalty was to party, not to justice. They should be gone, by whatever legal means available.
If I had a slush fund like the clintons and Al Gore and others I would not have to pay the IRS money for the stock profit I made.
If Obama appointed them or were appointed by any chain of people leading back to Obama, remove them. Go at least 3 layers deep.
We’re talking about the IRS, not ROE v. WADE!
IRS is far far far better than the state of California.
He needs to TOTALLY clean that department out. Who will he pick?
Roe v. Wade is a US Supreme Court decision, not a law.
Laws can get repealed to negate them.
Judicial decisions must be overturned to be nullified.
My (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue is that Roe v. Wade turned on the basis of states' rights, and was not determined on the basis an Unalienable right to Life (or lack thereof). Thus, if Roe v. Wade were reversed, the abortion issue would then become 50 separate state issues. Most states would leave abortion legal in at least some form; a few others would probably ban it altogether; and "liberal" states would keep even late-term abortion legal.
For those who are pro-life, the unfortunate side effect of overturning Roe v. Wade would possibly be to create a situation where abortion could never be banned altogether in the United States. But perhaps a new case could establish something like that?
So, to me, overturning Roe v. Wade seems like it might become a double-edged sword and introduce unintended consequences. But at least individuals, if they felt strongly enough about the issue, would have the potential option of moving to states that banned abortion, while others who felt differently could move to states that allowed it.
I imagine that this would leave many pro-lifers disappointed, though, because, even though abortion would be illegal in some states, the notion of a nationwide ban would become impossible.
However, I'm not intimately familiar with the legal precedents on which the original decision turned. Clearly, some believe there are issues of federalism and states' rights involved, while others focus on an Unalienable right to Life that applies to all individuals.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I believe that those who expect a nationwide ban on abortion to occur as a result of overturning Roe v. Wade are probably mistaken...
No, just punish the most prominent perps, make an example, and tell everyone to stop it or else. Vlad the Impaler only needed to do as much.
I vote national sales tax at retail point of sale only. No fed taxes on exports, no taxes on sales of used products. From the ground/sea to the table we only tax retail sales. No Fed income or corporate/ bus taxes. Each bus sends their monthly state and fed sales tax check to the state treas. State totals monthly sales and forwards check to Fed treasury. Sec of Treas would need a personal Sec for appointments and an accounting clerk to receive (57) checks from the “Obama” count. This would immediately do five things:
1. No more tax filing/sales receipt is proof you paid taxes.
2. No more IRS, since states already audit businesses, the state audit/tax system would double as Fed audit as well. Instant taxpayer savings.
3. Rerun to states rights, no more unfunded mandates (states simply hold monthly fed checks to cover costs).
4. American products export for about 30% less ( think balance of trade) and everyone wants genuine American made products.
5. MOST important, we would have a true Truth in Taxation law. When the budget is proposed every year the national sales tax rate would have to be adjusted to cover current expenses, no more deficit spending. We will be able to look at our sales receipt and know EXACTLY how much the gov is picking our pockets for. And also who to vote out, every election cycle.
This would encourage saving and investment the two necessary elements to a capitalist society. Money to invest, money to purchase, and let the market, not gov policy/executive orders determine winners and losers.
No - post their names in public. Expose the vampires to sunlight.
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.