Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 95

taxwonk · 10-03-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
2, but experience on one side of the bench and experience on the other are not mutually exclusive. And when a president goes to either extreme, I start to worry about his motivations. If it's "she is a brilliant, universally respected lawyer" or "he is a scholar whose views influence judges throughout the nation", that's one thing. If it's "she's a loyal devotee of the President," well, that's another.....

I agree with you. I was just pointing out to Penske, in support of Gatti's post, that he was being more than a little bit hasty in condemning the choice. The woman could well be a stealth William Bennett. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she was, given her closeness to Bush.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with appointing a non-judge to the Court. In this particular case, though, I have a hunch she was appointed because she would support the hard right agenda, but she had no track record to object to.

Penske_Account · 10-03-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Ah. One would assume Lloyd. Which is hardly condemnable - a Texan involved in politics giving money to a conservative democrat with a rock solid hold on his seat.

Of course, I'm sure the questions will be flying at the confirmation about her support of a racist/democrat.

This is stupid. The point is, obviously, from a partisan standpoint, it indicates something less than what he said he would do. Would Scalia have given BenTsen a donation? I doubt it.

taxwonk · 10-03-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Did either Brandeis or Warren have prior judicial experience? I believe both were heavily involved in politics and could be viewed as appointments driven by political payback or symbolism.

Neither served on the bench before their appointment. Neither did Byron White.

Warren was appointed by Eisenhower and later proved to be Ike's greatest single regret.

Replaced_Texan · 10-03-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is stupid. The point is, obviously, from a partisan standpoint, it indicates something less than what he said he would do. Would Scalia have given BenTsen a donation? I doubt it.

I don't think Scalia has ever run a business in Texas. I could be wrong.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-03-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I blame the Borkers, but I would rather see Luttig get borked then have a lightweight nominated for the stealth factor.

A legitimate point. However, when will you stop blaming the folks from nearly 20 years ago, and shift the blame to some more recent Democrats?

S_A_M
(Efs)

Penske_Account · 10-03-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I agree with you. I was just pointing out to Penske, in support of Gatti's post, that he was being more than a little bit hasty in condemning the choice. The woman could well be a stealth William Bennett. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she was, given her closeness to Bush.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with appointing a non-judge to the Court. In this particular case, though, I have a hunch she was appointed because she would support the hard right agenda, but she had no track record to object to.

I don't disagree with that equation, but I think that a non-judge should have a more objectively universally exalted position in the legal profession (or politics, based on history). She doesn't. And for the record, I am against pure stealth. The people I have touted have all had judicial records and the accomplishment to get to the judges seat. Or if not, have a record of accomplishment, remember I have touted Senator Hatch and Ted Olson. This lady, outside of Texas, no offence RT, is a zero.

Bush has pissed on the process. You can support him on this one, but I may be done.

taxwonk · 10-03-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't want to pay tax attorneys and financial planners. Its a zero sum game. Either I pay the government or the private sector. Either way it is a drag on the efficient and prodcutive use of the money. I would rather see the tax gone, the estate tax avoidance people put out of business and then have the money go into investment in the economy or at least into the economy in the form of useful consumption, i.e. not consumption of tax avoidance schemes.

A lovely thought. Unfortunately, it is wrong-headed and against your self-interest. Odds are very rare your estate will be subject to the estate tax. However, it is a virtual certainty that with the estate tax eliminated, you will pay more taxes over your lifetime due to an increase in the income tax to make up the estate tax shortfall.

Spending cuts will make up the difference you say? Ha ha ha. You have had Bush in office for nearly five years now. Try shitting in one hand and putting the dollars from spending cuts in the other. See which hand fills up first.

Penske_Account · 10-03-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think Scalia has ever run a business in Texas. I could be wrong.

Fair enough, did W ever donate to BenTsen? did Rove? Delay?

Penske_Account · 10-03-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
A legitimate point. However, when will you stop blaming the folks from nearly 20 years ago, and shift the blame to some more recent Democrats?

S_A_M
(Efs)

Uh, when I look around I still see Kennedy and Biden. On the other side I see Spector. Without going back and parsing the votes of anyone else who is still around from that period, I will lay the lion's share of the blame on those three arsejacks.

Shape Shifter · 10-03-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What's the issue?

The issue is you being an asshole.

Penske_Account · 10-03-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
A lovely thought. Unfortunately, it is wrong-headed and against your self-interest. Odds are very rare your estate will be subject to the estate tax. However, it is a virtual certainty that with the estate tax eliminated, you will pay more taxes over your lifetime due to an increase in the income tax to make up the estate tax shortfall.

Spending cuts will make up the difference you say? Ha ha ha. You have had Bush in office for nearly five years now. Try shitting in one hand and putting the dollars from spending cuts in the other. See which hand fills up first.

Dissent.

1. Maybe I am self-interested because maybe I have married or will marry someone who stands to inherit an estate that could be taxed. And ftr, if it is my current wife, then the money would be all self-made.

2. Even though I will be dead, I want my money going to my kids and not the government. Although if the estate tax is still around, I will find a way to skirt it without engaging consultants. As it stands now I plan to renounce my citizenship and move abroad in about 20 years which will leave me about 30-40 years life expentancy which will allow me to outlive the tail applicability of the tax code.

3. What you miss about me is that I am not against the concept of some tax to fund the Feds, but I wanted focused. Get rid of the estate tax and increase the income tax and force people to look at what government is taxing you for and what it is spending it on. Unlike Delay I think there is fat to be cut and I think it is a debate that has been ongoing since Reagan addressed the little people's concern about it. The estate tax is like a stealth tax...."only the superrich pay it"......"you're dead, what do you care"....bullshit. Every tax has an oppressive cost and I want that cost out front, not hidden. Then the people can make an informed decision.

Penske_Account · 10-03-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The issue is you being an asshole.

In what way?

Shape Shifter · 10-03-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In what way?

The assholey way.

ltl/fb · 10-03-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dissent.

1. Maybe I am self-interested because maybe I have married or will marry someone who stands to inherit an estate that could be taxed. And ftr, if it is my current wife, then the money would be all self-made.

If your (future or current) wife is inheriting the money, how is that self-made?

Sidd Finch · 10-03-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The only point I will address is I think the concept of a stealth nominee is a disservice to the process. It was bullshit when the Reps did it with Souter and Thomas and bullshit now. Put someone up there with a record and then debate it. Roberts did not have the most expansive record but he had decades of public service so there was at least more than bare hints of what was going on. I blame the Borkers, but I would rather see Luttig get borked then have a lightweight nominated for the stealth factor.

You blame Democrats? What a shock.