So, as long as I’m peaceful, I can conduct a protest in his backyard? Are (private) university rules about time, place, and method null and void as long as the demonstration is “peaceful?”
A different prediction: The Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case on grounds that any remedy should be left to the various state legislatures.
And then those four state legislatures, all nominally Republican controlled, will huff and puff and allow the “will of the people” to go forward, with fine words about how they’ll fix this in the future.
If the house democrats refuse to seat a republican congressperson who is certified as the winner by the state, and if one or both democrats “win” the Senate runoffs in Georgia, can the Senate republicans refuse to seat those certified winners?
I live and work in one of the counties that get huge benefit from this, and I’m fully in favor of eliminating this deduction, assuming basic rates are lowered so that the change is (at least) revenue neutral.
Why should middle-class taxpayers, and taxpayers in general from low-state-tax states, subsidize the profligate state governments of NY and California? If taxpayers in NY and California felt the full cost of their state governments, maybe they’d push to have those state taxes reduced. In any case, there is no reason why taxpayers in Alabama or Iowa or Texas should “contribute” to Albany and Sacramento.
(My first post after six years of lurking, so be kind.) The 58 to 42 doesn't mean that they're predicting W will win 58% of the vote, but that the probability that W will win the election is 0.58. The day before the election, if (say) W is polling 55% in the polls, the price on tradesport and the Iowa market will be something like 0.99, because at that point W is virtually certain to win the election. Good news that W's price is improving in these markets, but it isn't as much good news as a 58% share in some reputable poll would be.