Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

The court has lost a lot of respect over the Trump years.

1) Gorsuch's appointment is viewed as illegitimate because it came about due to McConnell blocking Garland for, what was it, 10 months? Gorsuch has turned out to be a respectable, qualified, and qualified jurist, more to the right than I like but that's the way things work. But he just shouldn't be there.
2) Kavanaugh revealed to the whole world, during his confirmation hearings, that he is a serial perjurer.
3) Barrett is at best borderline qualified and some of her past statements about religion would curl the hair of anyone who respects the 1st amendment.

I do not like the idea of packing the court for political purposes. But I have read good arguments that it should be increased because of a much greater case load that 9 justices simply cannot handle. The court has had 9 justices since 1869!!!

They have managed for all these years with 9. Liberal justices like Brennan and Ginsburg have stated not to increase the court size.  It has nothing to do with the caseload.  It's about packing the court with liberal judges to approve liberal legislation that would not otherwise pass muster constitutionally.

Even liberal justices there recognized that the Court's authority would disintegrate as the public will lose respect for decisions that appear political.  The public already has grown suspicious of it.  Packing it will be the death knell for any trust remaining.

[Alan Klein]

You seem to bring this up quite regularly. Ask your representatives the question. One thing is for sure, it’s not just out of the pure goodness of the US’s heart now is it?  It’s probably cheaper and much more militarily effective than having to park a fleet of aircraft carriers around the North Atlantic, Arctic Ocean and North Sea to monitor and challenge Russian adventures. And what makes you think the US wants to cut military expenditure?  There’s a lot of profit in making the tools of war and to justify that you need potential enemies all around. Imagine the mass unemployment and ruination of pension schemes if world peace suddenly happened.
Not that I’m at all cynical.....

We can't afford it anymore.

[Alan Klein]

That’s a pretty long answer for not having answered any of the questions I posed.

My post is the answer to your post.  I'll leave it to the others to figure out your points and my points.  I have confidence in their ability to do that.

[Manoli]

I do not like the idea of packing the court for political purposes. But I have read good arguments that it should be increased because of a much greater case load that 9 justices simply cannot handle. The court has had 9 justices since 1869!!!

I dislike drawing comparisons, but I fail to see why a system of say 11/15 justices, term limited by age, 70 or 75, ideally appointed fm within the judiciary and outside the influence of the sitting President, would be considered a negative.

Such is the Supreme Court of the UK.

[Manoli]

So now the CDC will be correctly identified as a tool of the administration instead of being independent medically and scientifically.  Any pronouncements from them going forward regarding Covid or anything else will be suspect.

Says it all.

[faberryman]

Enclosed in their statement was a link to the "proof":  a seeming fifteen-year-old report from the Sullivan Commission, obviously nothing to do with Covid.  That's their peer-reviewed study?
https://www.google.com/search?q=A+REPORT+OF+THE+SULLIVAN+COMMISSION+ON+DIVERSITY+IN+THE+HEALTHCARE+WORKFORCE&rlz=1C1PQCZ_enUS902US902&oq=A+REPORT+OF+THE+SULLIVAN+COMMISSION+ON++DIVERSITY+IN+THE+HEALTHCARE+WORKFORCE&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

What do you disagree with in the Sullivan report?

[Alan Klein]

I dislike drawing comparisons, but I fail to see why a system of say 11/15 justices, term limited by age, 70 or 75, ideally appointed fm within the judiciary and outside the influence of the sitting President, would be considered a negative.

Such is the Supreme Court of the UK.

Packing the court only requires the Democrats.  FDR (Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt) tried it back in the 1930s.  But even members of his own party stopped him.  It was a bad idea then and is a worse idea today.  Specific liberal justices were planned to be picked for the court to "approve" FDR's liberal legislation that the existing 9 member court would have declared unconstitutional.

Term limits is different  matter.  That would require a constitutional amendment as justices can serve for life.  Some have even tried to serve longer than that. 

[Alan Klein]

What do you disagree with in the Sullivan report?

It seems to be at least fifteen years old.  How can that be a scientific peer-reviewed study that assigns racism to Covid statistics for any group of people?  The study would have to examine rates of infection and death regarding Covid.  The CDC is just using a belief system by the Biden Administration and Democrats to draw that unscientific conclusion.  It's just politics and demeaning the CDC. 

I bet there are loads of scientists there who are pissed that they are being drawn into a racial and political controversy outside their expertise making it seem that they studied these things.  They didn't.   Certainly not in two months and with no CDC studies, only some second-hand old reports done outside the CDC by others reheated to give their statement cover.  The cover sheets of these reports seem to have had their issue dates removed so you don't realize how old they are.  The politics of it stink and diminish the CDC's authority.

[James Clark]

The politics of it stink and diminish the CDC's authority.

Did you say this one single time in 2020?

[TechTalk]

That’s a pretty long answer for not having answered any of the questions I posed.

My post is the answer to your post.  I'll leave it to the others to figure out your points and my points.  I have confidence in their ability to do that.

I have confidence in their ability to recognize a dodge and a deflection in order to avoid a question.

[faberryman]

It seems to be at least fifteen years old.  How can that be a scientific peer-reviewed study that assigns racism to Covid statistics for any group of people?  The study would have to examine rates of infection and death regarding Covid.  The CDC is just using a belief system by the Biden Administration and Democrats to draw that unscientific conclusion.  It's just politics and demeaning the CDC.

Your latest response, and those which preceded it, reflect that you didn't bother to read the CDC statement before denouncing it, or if you did, you clearly did not comprehend it.

[TechTalk]

But the top 1% currently pay 38% of all taxes and the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% only pay 3%. 

I've seen and listened to this narrative from a variety sources many times. Here's what they leave out... The narrative is that the top x% of earners pay x% of "the tax" or "taxes" or some similar wording. Alan exaggerates it even further here saying "all taxes". The sleight of hand — in trying to convince you that the wealthy are already overburdened and paying a disproportionate share of taxes — is achieved by only talking about income tax and leaving out all of the other taxes that are paid by lower income earners and which doesn't look at the total tax burden as a percentage of individual income.

Low to middle income workers, as an example, pay a fixed percentage of 7.65% (6.2% Social Security + 1.45% Medicare) in FICA taxes on 100% of their income. Social Security taxes, however, stop above a certain income limit. Depending on which recent tax year you look at, that cap varies a bit. For a nice round approximate number let's call it $140,000. On income above that amount, Social Security is 0% and Medicare adds an additional 0.9% (on earnings over $200,000 for single filers; $250,000 for joint filers). So, if you earn $45,000 per year, you pay 7.65% in FICA taxes. If you earn a $1 million salary per year, your FICA tax works out to about 3% (0.8% in Social Security and about 2.2% Medicare) of your earnings.

If your $1 million in income is not from work, but from long-term investments, then you're really doing well tax wise as your now paying capital gains taxes instead of income taxes. Those capital gains are capped at 20%, there is a 3.8% Medicare surtax, and 0% Social Security tax.

Now, to get to work or the Country Club, we all pay the same price for gas—including the Federal excise tax on fuel. It's just that, when you're struggling to make ends meet, it's the same size slice, for the fuel and federal tax, coming from a smaller pie.

If you ignore all of the other taxes that lower income workers pay, often at a higher rate as a percentage of total income compared to the top income brackets — and instead pick the right statistics for a single type of tax — you can create the narrative you want to sell to the masses. Those poor overburdened wealthy are treated so unfairly!

https://en.wikipedia.org/Taxes_revenue_by_source_chart_history

[TechTalk]

They have managed for all these years with 9. Liberal justices like Brennan and Ginsburg have stated not to increase the court size.  It has nothing to do with the caseload.  It's about packing the court with liberal judges to approve liberal legislation that would not otherwise pass muster constitutionally.

Supreme Court justices are experts in the law and the Constitution. Given your profound distrust in "experts"; your objections to increasing the size of the court; and that you don't find caseload to be an issue; how about this proposal — lets reduce the size of the court by one-third to just six based on seniority. Fewer experts and government employees screwing things up, what do you think?

That would leave Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. C'mon Alan; join me in the Supreme Court Reduction Movement!

[Robert Roaldi]

Packing the court only requires the Democrats. ...

What did you mean to say here, I didn't understand.

[TechTalk]

It's all unconstitutional.  The constitution allows the government to pay for an army, a post office, etc. but not to pay to bailout unions and corporations.  Where's the Supreme Court when you really need them to stop this practice?

The Supreme Court has a different view from you about what is constitutional and unconstitutional.

Not only does the Supreme Court have a different view about what is constitutional and unconstitutional, the Constitution has a different view about what is constitutional and unconstitutional regarding the powers of Congress to decide how and for what purpose to appropriate funds.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" [Capitalization as in original]

The Supreme Court has upheld the view on multiple occasions that it's a very broad power not limited by the other powers enumerated in Article I.

[TechTalk]

I've suggested pulling out of NATO totally.

There's a bad idea that stands out among bad ideas for how exceptionally bad of an idea it is.

[TechTalk]

Meanwhile we now have the CDC getting involved in politics [blah, blah, blah]

A government health agency should not get into race politics. [blah, blah, blah]

Because it has nothing to do with the study of viruses.  It's all about race politics [blah, blah, blah]

By getting the CDC involved, they'll claim that racism is systemic.  The Democrats will justify their social policies based on "science". [blah, blah, blah]

The Democrats are disgracefully pulling the race card again. It's all politics.[blah, blah, blah]

The CDC claims without any investigation, just on the face of it, that racism has caused health problems with minorities. [blah, blah, blah]

So two months after Biden takes over, the CDC [blah, blah, blah]

I bet there are loads of scientists there who are pissed that they are being drawn into a racial and political controversy [blah, blah, blah]

When you have an ax to grind, you can not only grind it until there's no blade left; you can grind it until there's no more ax. It doesn't matter how baseless the claim might be, as you will never cease to doubt it... or repeat it.

[Alan Klein]

I've seen and listened to this narrative from a variety sources many times. Here's what they leave out... The narrative is that the top x% of earners pay x% of "the tax" or "taxes" or some similar wording. Alan exaggerates it even further here saying "all taxes". The sleight of hand — in trying to convince you that the wealthy are already overburdened and paying a disproportionate share of taxes — is achieved by only talking about income tax and leaving out all of the other taxes that are paid by lower income earners and which doesn't look at the total tax burden as a percentage of individual income.

Low to middle income workers, as an example, pay a fixed percentage of 7.65% (6.2% Social Security + 1.45% Medicare) in FICA taxes on 100% of their income. Social Security taxes, however, stop above a certain income limit. Depending on which recent tax year you look at, that cap varies a bit. For a nice round approximate number let's call it $140,000. On income above that amount, Social Security is 0% and Medicare adds an additional 0.9% (on earnings over $200,000 for single filers; $250,000 for joint filers). So, if you earn $45,000 per year, you pay 7.65% in FICA taxes. If you earn a $1 million salary per year, your FICA tax works out to about 3% (0.8% in Social Security and about 2.2% Medicare) of your earnings.

If your $1 million in income is not from work, but from long-term investments, then you're really doing well tax wise as your now paying capital gains taxes instead of income taxes. Those capital gains are capped at 20%, there is a 3.8% Medicare surtax, and 0% Social Security tax.

Now, to get to work or the Country Club, we all pay the same price for gas—including the Federal excise tax on fuel. It's just that, when you're struggling to make ends meet, it's the same size slice, for the fuel and federal tax, coming from a smaller pie.

If you ignore all of the other taxes that lower income workers pay, often at a higher rate as a percentage of total income compared to the top income brackets — and instead pick the right statistics for a single type of tax — you can create the narrative you want to sell to the masses. Those poor overburdened wealthy are treated so unfairly!

https://en.wikipedia.org/Taxes_revenue_by_source_chart_history

We were talking about the fairness of federal income taxes. The amounts I posted above show the progressive nature of them.  I agree with you that there are other taxes like Social Security, Medicare, Sales Taxes, gasoline, etc that are regressive and hurt low income ad middle class at higher pecentages. Fortunately they're not hit with VAT taxes too like Europeans, a real regressive tax.

We also didn't include state taxes which are progressive like Federal and go as high as 13% in California.  Look I'm not here to defend the rich. At some point you'll get diminishing returns.  NYS is raising taxes on the rich and they're fleeing to Florida that does not have state income taxes. Also raising taxes on business hurts everyone as cost of products go up. Business decrease and more people lose their jobs.

The answer is to reduce spending not increase taxes. 

[Alan Klein]

Supreme Court justices are experts in the law and the Constitution. Given your profound distrust in "experts"; your objections to increasing the size of the court; and that you don't find caseload to be an issue; how about this proposal — lets reduce the size of the court by one-third to just six based on seniority. Fewer experts and government employees screwing things up, what do you think?

That would leave Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. C'mon Alan; join me in the Supreme Court Reduction Movement!

Seniority?  I didn't know they were in a union.  It's always the newest hired who are the first to be fired.

[TechTalk]

Yep. I listed the six most senior in order of their seniority.