Supreme Court will not hear challenge to Washington's Capital Gains tax
The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday it would not review Quinn v. Washington, the lawsuit challenging Washington’s capital gains tax.
The Legislature passed the tax in 2021 and payments first came due in April 2023. It’s a 7% tax on stocks, bonds and other investments or tangible assets above $250,000.
The tax brought in almost $900 million in revenue in its first year.
Opponents had argued it was a tax on income, and thus barred by Washington’s state constitution.
|
Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-same sex marriage web designer
I know many aren't surprised by the ruling, and I'm not either.
The dispute was one of several to land before the justices in the wake of its 2015 landmark decision establishing the right to same-sex marriage that raised the question of whether a business owner can refuse service to LGBTQ customers because of their religious beliefs.
In 2018, the high court sided with a Colorado baker who was sued after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, but did not address whether a business can deny services to LGBTQ people. Instead, the Supreme Court said the state's Civil Rights Commission was hostile to baker Jack Phillips' religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment.
In the years after, the Supreme Court declined to clarify whether states could force religious business owners to create messages that violate their conscience. But the court's rightward shift, solidified by former President Donald Trump's appointment of three justices, raised concerns that the Supreme Court would erode LGBTQ rights by allowing businesses to deny services to LGBTQ customers.
For full transparency, I edited the above to correct a typo from the news article. It originally said, "LGBTQ peple" which I feel confident is meant to be "LGBTQ people."
|
Two other bits of good news yesterday
I know I mentioned the death of Pat Roberts yesterday, but due to travel I neglected to celebrate the other two bits of wonderful news from the day:
First, Donald Trump was indicted on seven counts - We had known indictments were coming from the leaks, but to finally see it is historic and going to be a huge deal. They wouldn't do it without an air tight case, and now it's just about getting through it.
Second, the Supreme Court upholds Alabama is gerrymandered is huge.
By a 5-to-4 vote, a coalition of conservative and liberal justices reaffirmed the court's 1986 precedent interpreting how legislative districts must be drawn under the landmark voting rights act, as amended in 1982. The court said that in Alabama, a state where there are seven congressional seats and one in four voters is black, the Republican-dominated state legislature had denied African American voters a reasonable chance to elect a second representative of their choice.
The decision could reverberate across other states, with reconsideration of how congressional lines are drawn in areas with significant Black populations.
|
California won a Supreme Court case about humane pig treatment in meat production
Should California be able to require higher welfare standards for farm animals raised in other states if products from those animals are to be sold in California? On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s position by a 5-4 vote in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.
While the ruling was fractured and reflected complex legal questions, it is a major victory for those working to improve farm animal welfare. A number of states will undoubtedly take advantage of the power that the Supreme Court has recognized.
|
Supreme Court allows abortion medication to remain on market
Additional reading:
- The Supreme Court Protects Access to the Abortion Pill Mifepristone—At Least for Now (motherjones.com)
- The Supreme Court Preserves Abortion Pill Access—Temporarily (wired.com)
- Supreme Court pauses abortion pill restrictions from taking effect during appeal (thehill.com)
- The Supreme Court rules mifepristone can remain available – here's how 2 conflicting federal court decisions led to this point (theconversation.com)
- The Justices Pass on an Abortion-Pill Ban (theatlantic.com)
|
"Want change at the Supreme Court? Congress should offer justices buyouts for early retirement"
I cannot imagine this going over well. The Republicans would lose their mind at tax dollars being spent to pay to rebuild the Supreme Court. And any Justice who does take it would be harangued endlessly for selling out.
|
New Proposal Bridges Gap Between Term Limits and Court Expansion, Charts New Course on Reform
Fix the Court today is releasing a new two-part statutory proposal that would end Supreme Court justices’ terms after 18 years and includes a “backup” provision on court expansion, so if the justices deem the term limits section unconstitutional, SCOTUS will automatically expand from nine to 13.
The proposal is based on what’s referred to as “backup law” or “contingent design” and hews closely to an idea discussed in a law review article and op-ed last year by legal scholar G. Michael Parsons.
“Rather than settling on one [court reform] plan,” Parsons writes, “Congress instead should use […] ‘backup law’ to layer its policy preferences from most politically desirable to most constitutionally secure. If the court holds the first preference unconstitutional, the second will automatically take its place.”
|
Reddit poster dispels explains the Supreme Court and what the Democrats would have to do to stop the Roe v Wade being overturned
Found courtesy of my friend Bill:
So I’ve seen a number of comments blaming Democrats for this that say it’s their fault that Roe v Wade wasn’t “codified into law.” This shows a misunderstanding of how the US legal system works, so here’s a quick primer.
Role of the Supreme Court
At the very inception of the USA the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to be the interpreter of the US Constitution and the arbiter of whether laws passed within the US abide by the Constitution in the Marbury v Madison ruling. This has been an accepted role of the Court ever since, and falls within the notion of checks and balances. The Court acts as a check on Congress and the states to ensure that all laws passed follow the Constitution. For example, if Congress passed a law saying that no one could say bad things about the president, the Court would rule that this is not a law because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or if Congress passed a law saying that there are no more elections, they get to stay in Congress for life, the Supreme Court would overrule that law by saying “no the Constitution says elections every 2 years.” These Supreme Court rulings have the force of law.
So then can’t the Supreme Court just say whatever they want?
Well not quite but sort of. Supreme Court has a policy called stare decisis which means that they generally should respect previous decisions that have been made. Technically it’s up to them though. Theoretically another check on the power of the Supreme Court is that the President appoints them, so the people have a say in the Supreme Court based on who they elect as president. Finally, another way that the people can overrule the Court is by passing Constitutional Amendments — actually changing the most important document in the USA. However this is incredibly hard. Not only do 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) have to agree but then 3/4 of the State Legislatures have to pass it as well.
So how does this apply to Roe and abortion?
So Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Constitution as saying that women have the right to an abortion within certain limits. Remember, this has the force of law, and that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. If Republicans in Mississippi passed a law saying “there’s no right to abortion” the Supreme Court would say “nope we decided that and stare decisis says we stick with that decision”. And this happened time and time again. The restrictions changed somewhat but basically they continued to agree with their previous ruling. Except that’s not what happened THIS TIME. This time the Court said “you know we were wrong back then, changed our minds.”
But what about Democrats in Congress?
So like I said before, if Democrats passed a law last week saying “women have a right to an abortion”, then the Supreme Court could still say “nope that’s not in the Constitution.” If Democrats pass one tomorrow, the Court could still say the same thing. The only way to change it without the Court is to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is impossible in today’s America. This is why republicans have been laser focused on the Supreme Court. Hope this has been helpful!
EDIT: This is not to say that passing a law protecting abortion today would be not allowed — that’s not what Dobbs says — but highlighting the fact that no matter what law is passed (except a Constitutional amendment) the Supreme Court could (and based on today’s ruling would) overrule it.
|
Supreme Court blocks Texas' Social Media banYesterday was Fred Korematsu Day
Internment camps are among the worst things in America's history. And it is wrong that in learning about it in school, I don't recall learning about Korematsu. It wasn't until I was out of college that I heard his name, and so it is all the more important to ensure others learn of him as well.
"Korematsu challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, the decree that forced the relocation of people of Japanese descent to internment camps. The court ruled in favor of the government and against Korematsu in what is now widely considered one of its worst decisions. The majority of justices claimed the detentions were not based on racial discrimination but rather on suspicions that Japanese-Americans were acting as spies."
I wonder if there is a book for parents that focuses on arming them with the darker lessons in history that schooling often overlooks. Seems like it would be a good resource for raising a socially and historically aware child.
|
Biden is staffing for a commission on Supreme Court reform
I am not a liberal who is gung-ho about changing the Supreme Court. But I am also not a constitutionalist, or the equivalent. I am all for a careful evaluation of our current government systems, in all branches, and an indepth study about what problems there are and what proposed fixes might be, then further investigation about repercussions of those changes, repeated out several levels of depth. It would be a slow and painful process to ensure that a change is really needed, and that any resolution or fix is carefully considered.
I regard changing something like the Supreme Court as akin to a change to a computer system's BIOS. It is something that can be done, but it cannot be done willy-nilly. It is a very serious piece of change.
So, for those reasons, I am glad to see Biden taking the first steps to make exactly that sort of in-depth investigation, knowing it is a long road ahead of us.
|
