• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-23-2022, 09:41 AM
    Whether they were declassified or not has no bearing on the fact that the papers belong to the government, per the Presidential Records Act. Trump illegally retained possession of them, plain and simple. It's more likely that he wanted them as trophies to feed his ego than he wanted to release any information they contain (except perhaps for the "love letter" he claims to have received from Kim Jong-un, which he could show off at parties).
    97 replies | 2768 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-20-2022, 10:15 AM
    In Trump's mind it wasn't a sacrifice. It was an opportunity to feed his massive narcissism.
    31 replies | 541 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-18-2022, 02:58 PM
    Not to mention similar laws passed by state legislatures, including those dealing with intestacy, civil actions for wrongful death, and community property.
    20 replies | 815 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-18-2022, 10:02 AM
    As noted above, there is nothing in the bill as amended in the Senate that would allow a church's tax exemption to be revoked because of its belief in traditional marriage. It should also be noted that the tax exemptions of non-church organizations are already at risk if they employ certain practices that are deemed to violate public policy. See Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), where the Court (8-1) upheld the revocation of a university's exemption because of its racially discriminatory practices.
    20 replies | 815 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-17-2022, 10:27 AM
    While some think marriage is purely a religious institution, it is also a legal one that has significant ramifications. Civil marriages aren't going away, and so long as the government is going to recognize them and prescribe their legal results (e.g., determining who gets the property of someone who dies without a will), it cannot refuse to recognize a union on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
    20 replies | 815 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-17-2022, 10:04 AM
    Codifying Loving v. Virginia, Windsor v. U.S., and Obergefell v. Hodges is essentially an exercise in political posturing. Those decisions are currently the law of the land and legislation codifying their holdings is therefore unnecessary. Supporters of the legislation believe that it would forestall the Supreme Court's overturning these cases. But what is the constitutional basis for Congress to enact such legislation? Presumably, it's Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment. But if SCOTUS overturns these cases and says that there is no constitutional prohibition against anti-miscegention laws or laws recognizing only same-sex marriage, it seems that the basis for the codification legislation vanishes, except perhaps for the legislation's requirement that a state recognize a marriage that was legal under the laws of the state in which it was entered into. See https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/20/federalism-and-the-respect-for-marriage-act/ for a good discussion.
    20 replies | 815 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-17-2022, 08:24 AM
    Section 6 of the Act says otherwise.
    20 replies | 815 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-10-2022, 03:00 PM
    The District Court's opinion can be read here: https://casetext.com/case/massie-v-pelosi The 27th Amendment argument seems rather far fetched. Satisfying a fine out of a Congressman's compensation isn't a reduction any more than taking withholding taxes out of it would be. It shouldn't matter that the fine was imposed and enforced without an intervening election, because if compensation isn't being "varied" the Amendment is inapplicable. Looked at another way, if taxing a federal judge's compensation doesn't constitute a diminishment of the salary in violation of Article III (which the Supreme Court has held is the case), it's hard to see how taking a fine out of a congressman's pay is "varying" his compensation. It's true that, unlike a fine, taxes are enacted by Congress, but since the Constitution gives each house the specificv authority to adopt it own rules of procedure and discipline its members, such a distinction is immaterial.
    3 replies | 1833 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-03-2022, 03:43 PM
    I was contrasting the applicable statute with the definition (supposedly from the Worl;d Health Organization) that was in the OP, which is irrelevant. I should have said the Califormia law doesn't contain "relationship where there is an expectation of trust" as a necessary element. It's obvious that charging DePape with elder abuse wouldn't mean he knew Pelosi.
    14 replies | 675 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-03-2022, 02:46 PM
    Guess again. The relevant California statute contains no such element. All that's required in this case is that DePape knew or should have known Pelosi was at least 65.
    14 replies | 675 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,503
Posts Per Day
0.65
General Information
Last Activity
Today 10:18 AM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

09-14-2022


08-28-2022


08-22-2022


08-15-2022


08-07-2022


01-26-2021


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 79 1231151 ... LastLast

11-20-2022


11-18-2022


11-17-2022


11-03-2022


10-26-2022


10-25-2022


10-20-2022


10-17-2022


10-06-2022


09-30-2022


09-29-2022


09-28-2022



Page 1 of 79 1231151 ... LastLast