Posted on 05/25/2023 2:01:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway
>> Roberts: “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”
“... except Health Insurances. That also belongs to Caesar”
How did the liberals vote on the court
Obviously some of them voted for it, since there are only two conservatives.
It was a 9-0 decision.
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution ...
I hope that answers your question.
Almost gives me hope
9-0 but what is shocking is that she LOST at the lower level!
Alabama, Arizona, Nebraska, South Dakota: Y’all should be ashamed of yourself. The vast majority of the states doing this crap were among the 15 deep-blue states. But you five: oh, for shame, for shame!
They should also have been spanked for this.
9-0 ruling. Don’t see that often.
Unanimous is what it says.
“accrued a $2,300 tax bill, which turned into an approximately $15,000 bill after the government added on $13,000 in penalties, interest, and fees.
They should also have been spanked for this.
``````````````````````````````````
Who do they think they are, the IRS?
This is good, now what we need is a 9-0 ruling striking down the governmental theft called civil asset forfeiture.
She had a mortgage which was canceled on the foreclosure.
She had no equity in the house if she had to pay off the mortgage.
I’m a lawyer for past 30 years. I’ve been screaming this since day 1. Same for “civil asset forfeiture” [gov seizes $ or property, with no crime alleged or even existing, and the burden is on the owner to prove the property is legitimate against a gov. with unlimited resources. Usually unaffordable as it costs more money to make that case than the value of the property seized, which is why its so popular with the gov.]
So glad the USSC finally put an end to it. I am ashamed of the lower courts’ rulings. Those judges, unfortunately common, seek to pigeonhole any reason to justify a “couldn’t be more clear” 5th A violation and ignore the plain words that the gov. shall not take the property of a citizen without just compensation. Coming up with a facially logical reason [by ‘interpreting’ a statute or precedent as if those are written in a foreign language], despite being contrary to the underlying constitutional prohibition, is very common in court. Think of it as there being a inviolable rule with ever-expanding exceptions, making the rule no longer existent, and being laughed out of court for insisting the constitution controls. See 1st & 4th A’s for more examples.
Took only 200+ years to fix this.
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.