Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kagan catches Scalia and Thomas intellectually napping

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:59 PM
Original message
Kagan catches Scalia and Thomas intellectually napping
In a dissent responding to the conservative bloc's (including Thomas and Scalia of course) majority opinion stating that their is a lack of standing to bring suit against the government when it uses tax breaks to benefit religious causes/institutions but not when the money has been appropriated generally by the legislature.

She notes their past lack of differentiation between the two in other cases:

"And what ordinary people would appreciate, this Courts case law also recognizesthat targeted tax breaks are often economically and functionally indistinguishable from a direct monetary subsidy. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. , 515 U. S. 819, 859 (1995) (Thomas, J ., concurring). Tax credits, deductions, and exemptions provided to an individual or organization have much the same effect as a cash grant to the of the amount of tax it would have to pay absent the tax break. Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash. , 461 U. S. 540, 544 (1983) . Our opinions, therefore, have long recognized the reality that are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. Arkansas Writers Project, Inc. v. Ragland , 481 U. S. 221, 236 (1987) (Scalia, J. , dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted)." -Justice Kagan

What a smart lady!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Go Elena Kagan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, but that was then
This is now, and "Justices" Scalia and Thomas have suddenly decided that subsidies are subsidies and tax cuts are tax cuts and never the twain shall meet. Until they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. She's setting up the conditions for the court to overturn itself. Which it has at times by using
dissenting opinions as a basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. And in this case 50 years of precident
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. You mean round trip, BACK to Flast? Mebbe, w/in her tenure.
VERY happy she (and Soto and Ginsburg and Breyer) are on the Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. So glad she's on the court!
Nice choice there Mr. President.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R #6 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedeminredstate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. Snap!
We all knew that Thomas naps most of the time, intellectually or just snoozing through arguments. But didn't their clerks pick up on this? I guess these guys have been so blatant in their ideological rulings that they thought no one was paying attention anymore or more likely, they didn't give a shit.

This court has been so awful since 2000 when they revealed themselves as cheap partisans. There's no telling how much damage these wingers will inflict upon the nation by the time they're through.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. And people say that there is no difference between...
the Ds and Rs. She wouldn't be there without the President. Elections do matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Seriously. I am glad we got a couple on the SCOTUS to help balance it a little
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. Yup, yup
The Supreme Court can turn around laws made by Congress. The latest was making law that allows corps the ability to contribute any amount to THEIR candidate/party unanimously. Senile moment, can't remember the name of the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. +1...
every time someone brings up that canard, I mention Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor.

:thumbsup:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. The person she replaced was far more Liberal
:shrug: Now if she had replaced Scalia or Thomas I might agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. How many cases has she presided over?
Seems far too early in the game to be judging judge's SC decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Thank you....
it never seems to end. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taft_Bathtub Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
43. Perhaps the only reason left
There's not much else in all honesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. I wouldn't call it an intellectual nap, more like an intellectual coma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. Precedence is so 1999.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Remember all the respect Roberts had for stare decisis before the Senate?
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 09:23 PM by usregimechange
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Yeah, but,
that's what the repubs always say when asked about settled cases. They are just foolin'........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louslobbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
30. lol, yeah, I knew he was lying through his teeth, it was a great act by a bad actor.
Lou
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. That's our gal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. Kagan and Sotomayor should put to rest any doubts
about Obama's ability to pick capable SCOTUS judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Just hope he gets 4 more years of it, country can't afford any less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. No Sh##!!
There are some Very Old Justices that no doubt will have to be replaced in the next 6 years. It's Critical.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. ABSOLUTELY! Thanks for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
16. They better watch out! A REAL Justice sits on that court now and
can verbally/intellectually tie Scalia and Thomas together in knots and bows. Complacency kills...you two assholes think you are like the Koch brothers and invulnerable...remember that when you are getting removed by the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
17. K&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
18. That's an outstanding slap their faces!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
19. It's a shame that it won't be heard anywhere outside of court reporting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
20. Some tax breaks or more evil than others to them, dontcha know. Logical consistency isn't their
strongest personal quality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
21. I'm not trying to belittle Kagan's efforts, I do appreciate it, but catching
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 10:23 AM by Uncle Joe
Scalia or Thomas intellectually napping or contradicting their own stated legal beliefs and judgments, when they become inconvenient is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Having said that, I do hope Kagan keeps up the good work of exposing their judicial hypocrisy, if nothing else for the sake of the record.

Thanks for the thread, usregimechange.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. I'm sure she will, continue, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
25. These two have been been awoken
They're ideologues, eyes wide shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
27. Isn't Thomas always intellectually napping?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felix_numinous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
29. K&R
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bongbong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. Treason!
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 05:07 PM by bongbong
Kagan is actually calling out the repigs on the SCOTUS. It's not going to change their decision-making process, which entirely consists of doing what their billionaire bosses order them to, but at least she's saying the emperor has no clothes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roberto IS beto Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
36. Thomas has an intellect?
Who knew?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoIsNumberNone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
38. That's why the right wingers hate her so much
Calling right wingers on bullshit = judicial activism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
39. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
40. Nice catch, Mz Kagan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
41. Elections matter n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC