• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 10:03 AM
    Only via impeachment. Good luck with that.
    21 replies | 399 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-25-2020, 08:31 AM
    Not so fast. FDR's attempt to pack the Court in 1937, at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, failed. While it's true that Justice Owen Roberts's "switch in time that saved nine" may have made the attempt moot, the idea was unpopular among the public and Congress even before Roberts's switch. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 Moreover, Trump can't pack the Court at present because the Republicans don't control the House. Unlike the confirmation of a Justice, which involves only the Senate, an increase in the number of Justices requires the approval of both houses.
    7 replies | 178 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-25-2020, 08:14 AM
    The bill attempts to avoid this by making it inapplicable to current justices. But the language of the Constitution is clear, and it should have been obvious to the bill's sponsors that the 18-year term limit is unconstitutional.
    21 replies | 399 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-23-2020, 03:55 PM
    If you had spent more than 3 seconds on your research, you'd have learned that Louisiana has never adopted Articles 2, 2A, and 6 of the UCC, dealing with sales of goods, leases, and bulk sales. Adoption of only some UCC articles isn't the same as adopting the entire UCC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code_adoption I never intimated the UCC was a failure; I said only that the OP's suggestion that the ULC was some kind of compact whose proposals are somehow binding on the states is hopelessly wrong. Moreover, the ULC proposes many uniform laws in such non-commercial areas as family law, civil procedure, criminal law, and administrative law.
    4 replies | 1080 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-23-2020, 09:44 AM
    Of course there's a slight problem if your witness is dead or otherwise unavailable. A power of attorney won't work in situations where the law provides benefits to a "spouse". A power of attorney given by A may recite that B, the person to whom the power is given, is A's spouse, but all that does is authorize B to act on A's behalf. It doesn't establish that B really is A's spouse. For example, suppose A dies without a will and state law provides that the decedent's property passes to his or her spouse. A power of attorney is useless to prove that B is entitled to the property. Maybe A and B were simply lovers and the only reason A stated that B was his/her spouse was to try to get spousal benefits for B because he hated his children who are entitled to inherit A's property if A died unmarried. Incidentally, a power of attorney expires upon the death of the grantor of the power.
    23 replies | 696 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-23-2020, 07:41 AM
    People who want to get married in a purely religious ceremony without a license can do so but if they want their union to be recognized by the law they'll need to get a license, except in those states that still recognize common-law marriages (which are more difficult to prove than licensed ones, especially after one spouse has died). There's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it. Of course, a state doesn't have to require marriage licenses, but I would think all of them would require at a minimum that something be filed of record to evidence that a marriage occurred. But this still requires the government's involvement.
    23 replies | 696 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-20-2020, 06:41 PM
    Of course there is. Read again what Cornyn and Graham said, especially Graham, who described exactly the situation we're currently in.
    61 replies | 1807 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-20-2020, 10:22 AM
    No one's disputing the Senate's authority to confirm. I was merely pointing out the gross hypocrisy of McConnell and other Trump enablers. McConnell's statements in 2016 weren't based on the fact that the presidency and senate were of different parties -- he and other GOP Senators argued that the voters should have a say. McConnell: "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be." Grassley: "A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests. As Vice President Biden previously said, it's a political cauldron to avoid." Cornyn: "At this critical juncture in our nation's history, Texans and the American people deserve to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The only way to empower the American people and ensure they have a voice is for the next President to make the nomination to fill this vacancy." Cornyn also said the following on the Senate floor: "It’s only a matter of fundamental fairness to apply the same rules to the same situation, no matter who’s in the majority or who’s in the minority,” Cornyn argued on the Senate floor on March 17, 2016.
    61 replies | 1807 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-19-2020, 04:04 PM
    Uh huh. We had a 4-4 Court 9 months before the 2016 election but I don't recall Cruz demanding that Merrick Garland or any other nominee get a hearing, much less a vote. It appears McConnell isn't the only hypocrite in the Senate.
    61 replies | 1807 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-18-2020, 07:30 AM
    I wonder if the Target store had a policy requiring customers to wear masks. If so, these yahoos could have been arrested for trespassing, and I can't imagine that any libertarian in good standing would object. Even if the store didn't have such a policy, why should a group of protesters have the right to disrupt a private business?
    15 replies | 594 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-06-2020, 09:10 AM
    A bit of history: there once was a federal marijuana tax, enacted in 1937. The real reason for the act may have been economic protectionism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937), but it soon became a tool in the criminalization of pot. The tax was held to be unconstitutional in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) -- yes, it involved "turn on, tune in, drop out" Timothy Leary -- on the grounds that the law's requirement that a payer of the tax register with the government and admit to be a transferee of pot violated the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment. The tax was repealed in 1970, but if pot were ever decriminalized by Congress it's a pretty good bet it'd be taxed, just like liquor and cigatettes.
    16 replies | 704 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-02-2020, 10:10 AM
    Obviously, the next thing to go is "My Old Kentucky Home", the Stephen Foster tune that is Kentucky's state song and that is played and sung before the Kentucky Derby. It's clearly racist since the original second line is "'Tis summer, the darkies are gay", despite the fact that the line was officially changed by the Kentucky legislature in 1986 to "'Tis summer, the people are gay". After all, once something is racist, it's always racist even though it's been changed and even though people who are oblivious to its past have to be reminded of it.
    3 replies | 145 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-02-2020, 06:56 AM
    Thanks for confirming your no-thought, knee-jerk response habit. As usual, it led you to a false conclusion.
    30 replies | 1724 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    09-01-2020, 07:45 AM
    North Carolina Liberty: a knee-jerk right-winger who is under the delusion that keeping SS/Medicare at current levels while cutting their funding equates to gigantic increases in spending. I'll explain it so even someone of limited understanding like you can get it: Trump says he wants to save SS/Medicare, expand the nation's military strength, and increase spending on infrastructure, space exploration, veterans' benefits, local police, a national wireless network, and cleaning up the oceans. He also wants to eliminate the payroll tax and cut income taxes. The obvious problem is that all of these these things cannot be done without a huge increase in the deficit. So if you want to bitch about gigantic increases in spending, start with Trump. Of course, the Trump lemmings are too stupid to see that these proposals make as much economic sense as AOC's and Bernie's pie-in-the-sky fantasies.
    30 replies | 1724 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-31-2020, 09:12 AM
    Payroll taxes account for about 35-36% of federal revenue, and SS/Medicare accounts for about the same percentage of expenditures. If payroll taxes were eliminated, do you really think it'd be possible to reallocate that big of a chunk of revenue out of the remaining 64-65% without raising income taxes or creating a gigantic increase in the deficit?
    30 replies | 1724 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-31-2020, 06:58 AM
    Yeah, the way to save SS and Medicare is to eliminate their funding. Rex Tillerson was right -- Trump really is a moron.
    30 replies | 1724 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-29-2020, 03:59 PM
    I agree. I have to disagree there. If one tentatively accepts something (like the War of the Roses actually happened) and never bothers to make further inquiry, then he hasn't questioned whether the war really happened. There is only a limited amount of time in a class session or in the time an entire course takes. If a student is supposed to question everything, he'll never get beyond the first lecture. Nor will he have time later in life to question everything his teachers ever said or everything he ever read in books (even assuming he could remember it all). The plain fact is, there isn't enough time to question everything, and not everything is worth questioning. Just as you need to know when to pick your battles, you need to know what to question. If a history prof says that the 21st Amendment became law when Utah ratified it, I'm damn sure not going to waste my time trying to find out whether he's lying or mistaken and see it was really some other state. It's OK to be skeptical, but not about everything. Life's too short for that.
    36 replies | 1950 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):


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.


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:28 PM
Join Date





  • 10:57 AM - Hidden


No results to display...
Page 1 of 43 12311 ... LastLast














Page 1 of 43 12311 ... LastLast