SophismaCognoscente

It’s a good op ed and one with which any supporter of enlightened democracy should agree. The Supreme Court are playing fast and loose with public trust at a time when partisanship has crippled the other branches of government and polarization is dividing the country.

How can anyone respect a court that explicitly has no ethical standard?

America was founded on the freedom to believe in crazy things, so to a great extent I agree with you. But all rights—including speech, privacy, and religion—have limits, and these limits need to delineate the space between the competing rights of others.

If gay people have the right to marry, then a county clerk cannot have the right to deny marriage certificates to gay couples.

If people of legally protected classes have a right to conduct business without fear of discrimination, then businesses cannot have the right to refuse service to those people, for religion or any other reason.

This whole article is propaganda. If you want to see concern trolling, Millben is doing a ton of it by calling Obama’s remarks “arrogant” and “virtue-signaling.”

The fact is, religious nationalism is bad for any country that calls itself a democracy. Modi and his party should be taken to task both by Indians at home and by India’s fellow democracies.

The link is up there.

Basically the plaintiffs are hoping the Supreme Court enacts a narrow definition of the word “income” for taxability purposes relating to Trump’s repatriation tax, and they and their lawyers are explicitly inviting the Supreme Court to do so in a way that would also stymie a hypothetical wealth tax.

Per the article, “The Justice Department had urged the justices to reject the case, noting there was no split on the issue in the lower courts and arguing that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly applied the relevant precedents. On the wealth-tax question, the government also pointedly noted that the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to issue advisory opinions about hypothetical legislation that has not been enacted into law by Congress.”

I hate that I agree with this. On the one hand, “lying about a pandemic during a pandemic” sure sounds a lot like “shouting fire in a crowded theater,” but things like the lab leak theory aren’t really a matter of public health. While there are times when the government can and should fight dangerous misinformation, this is the kind of executive power that needs to be kept in check by the courts for the executive’s own good.

Georgia, the country, kindly request y’all mind your Ps and Qs.