dagblog - Comments for "SCOTUS Just Gouged the Establishment Clause; Obama Helped"

In one of the states, maybe

we are stardust — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:34:50 +0000

In reply to In Alabama, if a fetus can

In one of the states, maybe Alabamie or Arizonie, fetuses have the right to bear arms, too. *And* arm bears.

In Alabama, if a fetus can

Desider — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:30:37 +0000

In reply to Apparenty fetuses can receive

In Alabama, if a fetus can stagger up to a bar and order, he/she's old enough and sober enough to drink.

Don't know how it is in other states. Me, I always drink from a fetal position. With a long straw when necessary.

Well, there's the Special

Desider — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:28:52 +0000

In reply to I read that 'swinging dicks'

Well, there's the Special Theory of Dickitivity and the General Theory of Dickitivity, and then it gets confusing with Scrotum Mechanics and String Theory. Black Robes are optional.

[I was taught if you see a string, always pull it - you never know what's on the other end. But I have a feelign this one's a tad more complex, though likely not nearly as valid or Universal]

I read that 'swinging dicks'

we are stardust — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:33:45 +0000

In reply to They swing both ways and

I read that 'swinging dicks' term recently, but I forget where. Does it have common usage in some sphere, or is it more general? But man; I don't want that mixed with those Black Robes in my head; eeeeek.

Apparenty fetuses can receive

we are stardust — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:31:31 +0000

In reply to SCOTUS Just Gouged the Establishment Clause; Obama Helped

Apparenty fetuses can receive the tax credits according to this paper's investigations. Parents can choose the scholarship recipient and the programs will bank the credits until the fetus is old enough for school. Turns out it didn't get more minority kids into the schools, nor did anyone make sure that the requisite 90% of the funds collected go to scholarships, but the Scholarship Tuition Organizers DID end up with some nice cars and whatnot.

http://eastvalleytribune.com/special_reports/rigged_privilege/article_7debd2e5-d000-5aed-b813-a0d252377755.html

They swing both ways and

Desider — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 04:21:50 +0000

In reply to Ouch; we went blue here

They swing both ways and sometimes all around. We call this overreach, not sure where the judicial came in, or even judicious.

Bmaz at FDL says that this is

we are stardust — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 03:03:29 +0000

In reply to SCOTUS Just Gouged the Establishment Clause; Obama Helped

Bmaz at FDL says that this is a two-constitution issue; Arizona had its own law the newer law broke.

“No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school ….” Arizona Constitution, Art. 9, § 10.

But the US Supreme Court basically obviated that too by considering the law to contemplate citizen money as opposed to tax/public money. It is an absurd finding when it is money that is directly on its way to the state coffers when it is diverted. And, yes, I think this puts a healthy dent in taxpayer standing under Flast v. Cohen."

He has more in the comment thread.

http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2011/04/07/scotus-just-gouged-the-establishment-clause-obama-helped/

Pretty impressive bit of

we are stardust — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:29:07 +0000

In reply to You know I wrote an Amicus

Pretty impressive bit of history, DD. The $12.00 typewriter bit makes it even better. ;o) Sorry you lost. Is that where it all started to go wrong?

Ouch; we went blue here

we are stardust — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:26:22 +0000

In reply to Sounds like it leads to Blue

Ouch; we went blue here pretty fast. I surrender! This was supposed to be about Church; guess the Red Green reference shouldda been for Quinn, ;o)

Remember the Obama Warren Court quote I put up on A-man's? Guess the man can like it running whichever way he likes, yes?

You know I wrote an Amicus

Richard Day — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:09:20 +0000

In reply to Kennedy seems no longer to be

You know I wrote an Amicus Brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court on this issue in 1975 on a $12.00 typewriter. hahahaha

It was nice to be recognized in the opinion but we lost.

This really is an old issue and to get from rebates/credits to tax credits was not that hard a leap.

And you will notice how small the tax credit is.

I had a friend in high school who graduated from college and ended up teaching in a Catholic School--us boomers had to settle for less because of our numbers--and he was so pissed that his yearly salary was $7,000 that he went to law school. hahahahaha

I recall paying homesteaded property taxes of $3,000.00 a year in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I do not have the faintest idea what homesteaders are paying today! My first home was purchased for $27,000.00!

Of course in those days it would take ten years for the government to evict you for not paying homestead taxes. I have no idea what the law is now.

I assume in most states that a homesteader would be found out on the street after a year or two. Five hundred bucks is a small amount of money and it is just a holloween treat to a homeowner.

But to a repub cheerleader, like at least 5 members of our fascist Supreme Court, the legal theories would abound.

That's all I got right now.