HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Gothmog » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »

Gothmog

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PM
Number of posts: 91,247

Journal Archives

Lawsuit rejected over DNC tilt toward Clinton

I am so glad that this bogus lawsuit was rejected https://cbs12.com/news/local/lawsuit-rejected-over-dnc-tilt-toward-clinton

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit filed by some Democratic donors and Bernie Sanders supporters that alleged wrongdoing by the Democratic National Committee and former Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the 2016 presidential primary process.

Boiled down, the lawsuit alleged that ďduring the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, the DNC and Ms. Wasserman Schultz improperly tipped the scales in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was challenging Senator Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination,Ē the ruling said.

Filed in South Florida, the lawsuit raised a series of allegations, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and proposed three potential legal classes: Democratic National Committee donors, Sanders campaign donors in 2016 and voters affiliated with the Democratic Party in various states.

But the appeals court rejected the lawsuit on a variety of grounds, including plaintiffs not having standing or not meeting legal tests to back up the claims.

70+ Inspectors General sharply criticized TheJusticeDept "handling of the original whistleblower

https://twitter.com/File411/status/1188964917111644160

DNC Beats Appeal in Suit Alleging 2016 Primaries Favored Clinton

This lawsuit was bogus https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/dnc-beats-appeal-in-suit-alleging-2016-primaries-favored-clinton

Sanders campaign donors lack standing
DNC donors, voters fail to allege viable claims

The Democratic National Committee prevailed in a proposed class suit alleging the 2016 presidential primary process was biased against Sen. Bernie Sanders, as the Eleventh Circuit Oct. 28 said donors lacked standing for some claims and other claims lacked merit.
The plaintiffs sued on behalf of donors to the DNC, donors to Sandersís 2016 campaign, and registered Democratic voters in various states.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1188922345370652672

Joe Biden's statement of the passing of former Senator Kay Hagan

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1188885642601590784

Luckovich-Rudy-My butt is part of the Deep State

https://twitter.com/mluckovichajc/status/1188937586775080960

Biden Statement-trump's "erratic behavior made it harder and more dangerous for the special forces

https://twitter.com/AndrewBatesNC/status/1188872007976411137

Nate Silver/538-Warren's Wealth Tax Isn't The Slam Dunk Progressives Want It To Be

I personally doubt that the proposed Wealth Tax is constitutional. The direct tax clause of the US constitution is clear and the 16th Amendment does not authorize this tax
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1188829533526474754

Additionally, a wealth tax would almost certainly face a legal challenge from well-funded conservative opponents. And itís genuinely unclear whether it would ultimately be ruled constitutional. The issue isnít that Congress canít enact a wealth tax. Itís that if a wealth tax counts as a ďdirectĒ tax, Congress would have to ensure that the amount of money coming from each state was roughly the same on a per-capita basis, as there is a provision of the Constitution that bans direct taxes unless the amount collected is drawn equally from the states based on their populations. Given that wealth is not evenly distributed across the states, that equal distribution would be functionally impossible to ensure.

The fate of a wealth tax, then, would hinge on whether it counts as a direct tax. Thatís a tough question to answer, because the Constitution itself doesnít really define what a direct tax is, beyond the fact that the category includes a poll tax, which is a fixed amount charged for every person. Taxes like tariffs and certain others that canít be fairly distributed on a per-person basis are generally not considered direct taxes. But how all of this would apply to a wealth tax isnít entirely clear. The Supreme Court weighed in on this question more than 100 years ago ó and not in the wealth taxís favor. In 1895, the court struck down a federal income tax law because it taxed income generated from property, including land and other kinds of personal property, like stocks and bonds. The decision was controversial, and Congress and the states effectively reversed part of it 20 years later with the passage of the 16th Amendment which allowed Congress to tax income without worrying about how evenly it was distributed. But Congressís authority to tax wealth wasnít addressed by the amendment, and the Supreme Court hasnít really returned to the issue in the past century.

Warrenís defenders argue, however, that the court simply got it wrong back in 1895, and that a modern wealth tax wouldnít count as a direct tax. But the courtís right-leaning justices might approach the tax with a less favorable eye. And the existence of the old precedent could give the courtís conservative justices a way to dispatch a wealth tax relatively easily, which gives experts like Daniel Hemel pause. ďA wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars ó or, if itís struck down by the Supreme Court, it could raise nothing,Ē said Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago. ďThatís a really big risk if you care about the redistribution of income and youíre trying to figure out how to get it done.Ē

This tax is not likely to survive legal challenge

Nate Silver-Warren's Wealth Tax Isn't The Slam Dunk Progressives Want It To Be

There is a strong case that this tax would be a direct tax and therefore would not work under the US Constitution
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1188815304534700032

Additionally, a wealth tax would almost certainly face a legal challenge from well-funded conservative opponents. And itís genuinely unclear whether it would ultimately be ruled constitutional. The issue isnít that Congress canít enact a wealth tax. Itís that if a wealth tax counts as a ďdirectĒ tax, Congress would have to ensure that the amount of money coming from each state was roughly the same on a per-capita basis, as there is a provision of the Constitution that bans direct taxes unless the amount collected is drawn equally from the states based on their populations. Given that wealth is not evenly distributed across the states, that equal distribution would be functionally impossible to ensure.

The fate of a wealth tax, then, would hinge on whether it counts as a direct tax. Thatís a tough question to answer, because the Constitution itself doesnít really define what a direct tax is, beyond the fact that the category includes a poll tax, which is a fixed amount charged for every person. Taxes like tariffs and certain others that canít be fairly distributed on a per-person basis are generally not considered direct taxes. But how all of this would apply to a wealth tax isnít entirely clear. The Supreme Court weighed in on this question more than 100 years ago ó and not in the wealth taxís favor. In 1895, the court struck down a federal income tax law because it taxed income generated from property, including land and other kinds of personal property, like stocks and bonds. The decision was controversial, and Congress and the states effectively reversed part of it 20 years later with the passage of the 16th Amendment which allowed Congress to tax income without worrying about how evenly it was distributed. But Congressís authority to tax wealth wasnít addressed by the amendment, and the Supreme Court hasnít really returned to the issue in the past century.

Warrenís defenders argue, however, that the court simply got it wrong back in 1895, and that a modern wealth tax wouldnít count as a direct tax. But the courtís right-leaning justices might approach the tax with a less favorable eye. And the existence of the old precedent could give the courtís conservative justices a way to dispatch a wealth tax relatively easily, which gives experts like Daniel Hemel pause. ďA wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars ó or, if itís struck down by the Supreme Court, it could raise nothing,Ē said Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago. ďThatís a really big risk if you care about the redistribution of income and youíre trying to figure out how to get it done.Ē

Then there are the critics who have argued that even if a wealth tax could survive a legal battle, it would be a nightmare to implement and might not raise as much money as Warren and Sanders have claimed. Yang, in particular, has homed in recently on the practical shortcomings of a wealth tax. In the October debate, he pointed out that many European countries tried wealth taxes of their own but eventually abandoned them, in part because they proved so difficult to administer.

I am planning on watching Joe Biden's Sixty Minutes interview tonight

https://twitter.com/TexasBluein20/status/1187767738355322880

Vice President Biden's statement of the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1188474466155802624
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »