Given the recent ethics questions about justices’ interactions with billionaires, it’s an interesting case to take on.

Given the recent ethics questions about justices’ interactions with billionaires, it’s an interesting case to take on.

  • EfficaciousSkink@lemmy.world
    531·
    1 year ago

    The Supreme court has lost its legitimacy due to ethics violations and its many of members need to be made to resign in shame.

    • erp@kbin.social
      31·
      1 year ago

      This court is about as supreme as seafood salad left in a hot car over the summer.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    171·
    1 year ago

    Congress can pass unconstitutional laws, they do it all the time. More so, they can decide the supreme court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a law, as they have done in the past.

    Laws and rulings are only as strong as the legitimacy of the government enacting them. This court is seriously challenging it’s own legitimacy.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      16·
      1 year ago

      Dude you gotta spend at least like one click and 2 seconds on trying to read the article.

      Is there supposed to be a link for this?

      https://newrepublic.com/post/173913/supreme-court-may-pre-emptively-ban-federal-wealth-tax

      I don’t think the Supreme Court can preemptively decide anything without a lawsuit. Is there something in a recent ruling that signals this?

      First sentence: “The Supreme Court took up a case on Monday that could make it nearly impossible for Congress to pass a federal wealth tax, giving the justices an opportunity to torpedo a major Democratic policy proposal before it can be enacted.”

      All the lower courts have rejected the plaintiffs’ fairly ridiculous argument, so the fact that the Supreme Court took the case in the first place is a worrying sign, which it’s fair to summarize this way I think.

    • SophismaCognoscente@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      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.”

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      4·
      1 year ago

      Congress should probably make it illegal for overstepping the supreme courts power…but basically they’ve started taking theoretical cases that just let them rewrite any laws they want, and not just ones that people are actually suffering from.