Supreme Court Inequality

Spread the love

Loading


 
How about a quick break from The Kung Flu Virus and the Boogie Wuhan Flu? A few weeks ago in the Sunday Washington Post Adam Cohen dropped an opinion piece about the Supreme Court (SC) over the last half century. Apparently, because the SC has been making rulings based on the Constitution instead of some bizarre Marxist agenda, it’s hurt average Americans. As much as I’d love to go piece by piece through every bit of the stupidity of this post, things are still busy in Bobworld and I’ll keep this to the most insane assertions. First up (emphasis mine, link is from original post):

As for the nation’s nonprogressive tax system, a significant portion of blame lies with the court’s unraveling of campaign finance laws starting in the 1970s: These decisions rely on the dubious claim that money is speech and therefore deserves constitutional protection. The court’s rulings gave more political power than ever to the rich, who used that influence to drive down their own tax rates.

Higher taxes on rich people are popular — in one recent poll, 76 percent of registered voters wanted them to pay more. But wealthy campaign contributors have been blunt about conditioning future donations on lower tax rates. When the 2017 Trump tax bill was pending, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned colleagues that if Republicans did not get it passed, the “financial contributions will stop” and incumbents would lose their jobs. When lawmakers voted, more of them listened to their contributors than to their constituents.



At one time I would have also done a dive into the survey, its wording, as well as methodology. The link itself jumps back to an early 2019 puff piece in Politico attempting to fluff for Fauxcahontas. Luckily, simple reality debunks the entire survey without my even having to click through and examine it. Eight years ago I took a look at not a study, but cold hard facts as to who goes through the perfectly legal practice known as tax avoidance. For any non-Economics geeks out there wondering what the difference between ta avoidance and tax evasion is, I’ll illustrate with a simple example. Tax evasion is failing to report legitimately taxable income, and is a crime. Tax avoidance could be just crossing state lines to make a purchase where the sales tax is lower. This practice is quite legal, and here are a few examples of prominent Leftists who have engaged in this practice: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and the entire freakin’ state of Massachusetts. One other prominent Leftist included in my post from eight years ago? That’s right, Fauxcahontas herself!

But if you think that this is old news and we should look at Leftists today, look no further than reaction from two groups. President Trump called on overseas freeloaders to pay their fair share of taxes, and they were none too happy about it. Even here at home, when President Trump “closed some loopholes” (That was Obama’s favorite term for raising taxes, why not bring it back now?) to prevent lower income Americans from having to subsidize the bad choices at the ballot box made by the wealthy, naturally those wealthy Leftists hit the roof. So can we move past this lie that somehow The Supreme Court is the reason that wealthy Leftists are hypocrites? Great!

One more point needed to be addressed today. Back to Cohen’s article:

A dramatic example of the contemporary court’s attitude toward the poor came in 2012, when it narrowly upheld most of the Affordable Care Act. That part of the opinion marked a victory for people who could not afford health insurance. Yet in the same ruling, the court limited the law’s Medicaid expansion, on unconvincing constitutional grounds that it involved coercion of states by the federal government. That decision effectively took Medicaid away from millions of the poorest Americans (given that 14 states still have declined to expand the program). One study estimated that more than 15,000 deaths could have been avoided over four years if all states had expanded Medicaid.

He actually got partially right the part about how a Supreme Court  ruling hurt the poor’s access to health care. Yes, thanks to the SC the poor lost access to hospitals. And while there are many places where blame could be laid, in the end it wouldn’t have happened if the SC didn’t legislate from the bench.

To sum up, failure of the SC to shred our Constitution isn’t leading to mass misery. In fact, as we’re seeing in many of the mini laboratories for tyranny, the Constitution and a judiciary that upholds it is turning out to be an excellent line of defense against The radical Left. The beauty is that the Constitution even protects the ignorant and ungrateful.

Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook Also Gab and MeWe.

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

0 0 votes
Article Rating
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They certainly will need to release many more pedophiles, rapists and various felons to jail all those citizen tax payers who wish to go to tax payer funded places, liberal prison reform, going for a better safer prison system.

That’s right force all Church’s to Close but allow for Planed Parenthood to Stay Open make the Gun Stores close but allow the Liquor Stores to stay Open welcome to see what its like living under the Socialists Democrats Control

Those who belong in Prison like Obama both the Clinton’s and Al Gore the Bore as well as their cabinets

@Spurwing Plover: Want a touch more Liberal insanity, you can only do take out at Liquor Stores. WTH??

IN the SF Bay Area 12 kids can congregate BUT you can’t get a #$%^& haircut.