June 21, 2013

"When May the Government Require Groups to Endorse Certain Views in Order to Get Government Benefits?"

Eugene Volokh frames the question of what was at issue in the Supreme Court's opinion in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc. and quotes his own brief which was — I would say; he doesn't assert so — influential:

This case is about far more than prostitution and HIV/AIDS. The expansion of the modern regulatory state has increasingly led to financial involvement of the government with private organizations — including churches, religious universities, and religious charities — in ways that potentially give the government power over those organizations. Tax exemptions, which have been treated by this Court as tantamount to the provision of funds, are a prominent example. Student loans and grants, which are likewise treated as equivalent to direct payments to the university, are another. Numerous other examples exist, including the direct grants at issue here.

Under the government’s theory in this case, federal, state, and local governments may use these kinds of government funding programs as leverage to pressure organizations into affirmatively expressing particular government-prescribed views as the organizations’ own. For instance, if a government wants to pressure such groups to avow that they support or oppose contraception, pacifism, abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide, or whatever other policy those then in control of the government choose, then that government would be free to do so.

For the reasons discussed below, that cannot be right. Such a “get with the program” power would let the government badly distort the marketplace of ideas by strengthening groups that toe the government line and financially crippling groups that refuse to say what the government demands. And such a power to coerce ideological conformity would unacceptably burden religious groups’ rights to speak or not speak in accordance with the truth as they see it. “[N]o official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Likewise, no official should be permitted to acquire such a power by using the government’s vast resources as a tool for control of groups that participate in government programs.

Contrary to the government’s view, a government’s recognized power to limit speech within the programs that it funds cannot justify a power to compel speech as a condition of government funding. Government programs that limit what can be said within the programs typically leave participants ample alternative means of exercising their rights to speak as they see fit. The participants just have to engage in their preferred speech outside those programs.

But when the government compels an organization to say things — even if only through an affiliate — as a condition of participating in a program, then the organization cannot avoid saying those things. It thus has no alternative means of exercising its Free Speech Clause right not to speak while still participating in the program.

Moreover, once an organization is pressured to state a policy with which it does not agree, even through an affiliate, its ability to express contrary views outside the program will be undermined. Saying one thing in the program and the opposite outside will make the organization appear at best equivocal and at worst hypocritical. Thus, by compelling the endorsement of a government policy as a condition of accessing government-controlled funds, the government will have the power to effectively restrict the program participant’s speech even outside the government program — a power this Court’s cases have rightly rejected.

89 comments:

Seeing Red said...

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Pogo said...

President Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

garage mahal said...

Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin. Scott Walker is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Ann Althouse said...

"Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin."

You favor politicians making political appointments to people who are actively seeking to oust them from office?

How is the appointments process like taxing and spending?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin.


You couldn't cite an actual example of this if your life depended on it.

Nathan Alexander said...

garage mahal only favors taking cheap shots at conservatives, especially Gov Walker, whenever possible.

No need to read anything else into his postings here other than petulant, evidence-free willie-waving.

Jay said...

Haven't there been other cases in this area that have been decided by the Supreme Court?

MadisonMan said...

I presume Garage refers to the Regent Appointee (the student one, I think) who was appointed by Walker, and then de-appointed when it was revealed (not sure by whom) that Appointee had signed the recall petition? Given money to some anti-Walker group? (I'm not sure).

If Walker wants complete loyalty, why doesn't he exercise due-er diligence when making an appointment? Ideally, the due-est of diligence.

garage mahal said...

You favor politicians making political appointments to people who are actively seeking to oust them from office?

I favor a hiring system that doesn't discriminate against people who exercised their constitutional rights to sign a recall petition. So yes.

It actually works both ways. In the future conservatives could be discriminated against as well for signing a recall petition against a Democrat. Or even not signing a recall petition could potentially be held against a person.

exhelodrvr1 said...

You mean like the benefit of not having your computer hacked into in the middle of the night?

Dante said...

Good for the supreme court. Non government organizations should not be a part of government propoganda, except in very specific cases (such as, here is your brain on drugs).

Unfortunately, though, one can see once again the issue with government control of so much. This is why government must be limited, or at least be competitive.

It's imperative to figure out how to return power to the states. Then, if highly conservative states want to ban abortion, etc., they will have to compete in the marketplace of ideas and law.

Pogo said...

Obama made a dig against Catholic schools in Ireland (in his recent Spinal Tap 'Stonehenge' tour), and his administration has demanded that Catholics sell birth control.

He doesn't give shit what Mr. Tax-not-a-penalty Justice says, because he'll say something else when needed.

Pogo said...

"It actually works both ways. "

Well, it's your party using the IRS to shut people up, so clean up your own house before bitching.

Synova said...

For what job, garage?

I'd agree with you if Walker is going through and blocking hiring for road crews or teachers. If he's refusing to hire on petition signers to his own staff or political appointments then... wow... cry me a freaking river.

Jay said...

garage thinks a student appointment (he has no idea if it is paid) to the UW Board is "working"

garage is really, really dumb.

Lyssa said...

Wouldn't, by this logic, the government be compelled to fund schools that, in addition to a regular curriculum, also teach religion or other objectionable matters? At least, if the government is to fund schools at all.

Nomennovum said...

I would say; he doesn't assert so

I thought you frowned on the use of semi-colons, professor.

Jay said...

When you have to take to the Internet to equate a temporary appointment to a quasi-governmental body as some sort of "job" to take pot shots at your state's Governor, you're either silly, dishonest, or mock-worthy stupid.

Cedarford said...

Seeing Red said...
The power to tax is the power to destroy
================
Move to tax-free Somalia or Afghanistan, where your nursery school level slogan plays out in real life in it's absence.

Oh, wait...the power to then form armed groups of Freedom Lovers! is also the power to destroy and extort money and behaviors from those the Freedom Lovers subjugate! Be they Talibani or young black thugs roaming neighborhoods in machine gun mounted pickup trucks.
My word! Another slippery slope!

Just one libertarian assholes neglect to mention.

garage mahal said...

When you have to take to the Internet to equate a temporary appointment to a quasi-governmental body as some sort of "job" to take pot shots at your state's Governor, you're either silly, dishonest, or mock-worthy stupid.

It was such a nothing burger appointment that Walker couldn't even pull that off. Vetted for 4 months, told the kid he had the appointment, announced publicly his choice of the appointment, then withdrew it a few days later after it was found he signed a recall.

This is why people like you are so paranoid that Democrats are out to get them, because that's how you operate. It's in your DNA.

Gahrie said...

If Walker wants complete loyalty, why doesn't he exercise due-er diligence when making an appointment?

Maybe because the Democrats managed to so screw up the State of Wisonsin that he has dozens of things to worry about every day that are more important than the student appointee to the Board of Regents?

Sorun said...

As seen in Madison recently, the mayor's attempt to restrict city contracts to only those with certain views.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
It was such a nothing burger appointment that Walker couldn't even pull that off.


It is not a "job" as the word job is commonly understood.

Goof.

Calypso Facto said...

I presume Garage refers to the Regent Appointee (the student one, I think) who was appointed by Walker

He was NOT appointed, he was a political nominee who then had his nomination revoked. 230 years into politicians appointing politically like-minded people to political posts in this country, and only now does garage think it's a problem. Wonder why that is?

Scott M said...

I favor a hiring system that doesn't discriminate against people who exercised their constitutional rights to sign a recall petition. So yes.

Your past support of public union employees casts anything you say in favor of a given hiring system (which, by definition must also include a firing system) in a humorous, if not outright ironic, light.

MadisonMan said...

Maybe because the Democrats managed to so screw up the State of Wisonsin that he has dozens of things to worry about every day that are more important than the student appointee to the Board of Regents?

Riiight.

And it's Bush's fault, too, for all of Obama's screwups.

Scott M said...

This is why people like you are so paranoid that Democrats are out to get them, because that's how you operate. It's in your DNA.

With current administration scandals, in particular the IRS and DOJ issues, this comment is particularly humorous.

You're en fuego today, GM.

Pastafarian said...

Garage, you're in high indignation mode because a governor didn't appoint one of his political opponents to a politically appointed office.

And yet you poo-poo the fact that the IRS, OSHA, and EPA went after ordinary citizens, small business people, and damned-near ruined lives, because those people had the gall to support a political movement opposed by the acronyms' superiors and union (which contributes almost solely to the party of their superiors).

Jesus, garage. Go eat a bowl of fuck.

garage mahal said...

Petty, vindictive, revengeful, and most of all, just sheer incompetence. All the hallmarks of Walker.

Achilles said...

Cedarford said...
Seeing Red said...
The power to tax is the power to destroy
================
Move to tax-free Somalia or Afghanistan, where your nursery school level slogan plays out in real life in it's absence.

Oh, wait...the power to then form armed groups of Freedom Lovers! is also the power to destroy and extort money and behaviors from those the Freedom Lovers subjugate! Be they Talibani or young black thugs roaming neighborhoods in machine gun mounted pickup trucks.
My word! Another slippery slope!

Just one libertarian assholes neglect to mention.
6/21/13, 3:31 PM

Nice straw man argument. You make garage and Obama proud.

Scott M said...

All the hallmarks of Walker.

And I was so sure you were going to finale with the DOJ there, damn.

Pastafarian said...

I'm going to apply for a position with the Obama Administration -- and if I don't get it merely because I've referred to Obama as "President Poopdick" on numerous occasions, I'll scream "discrimination".

Garage, I know you never discriminate. Particularly between a valid argument and a steaming pile of shit.

edutcher said...

Given that Der Fuhrer has now declared whistleblowing tantamount to treason, your rights are pretty much up for grabs.

As I say, Constitutional rights is now a contact sport.

I Callahan said...

It actually works both ways. In the future conservatives could be discriminated against as well for signing a recall petition against a Democrat. Or even not signing a recall petition could potentially be held against a person.

Or, the IRS might actually discriminate against conservative groups for petitioning against the Obama administration.

Oh, wait. You said the other day that this isn't happening. Never mind...

Synova said...

Oh fer pities sake... I thought we were talking about a *job* and putting food on the table.

I wonder if the kid only signed the petition because he was asked to do so in front of his college friends and didn't dare not do it.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...
Petty, vindictive, revengeful, and most of all, just sheer incompetence. All the hallmarks of Walker.

6/21/13, 3:41 PM

Cedarford goes with the straw man, garage goes with projection, the definition of.

How intellectually flaccid can a statist get?

Hagar said...

@ Lyssa,

Justice Black set the interpretation of "prohibiting the free exercise therof" on its head.

And:
The Federal Gov't should not be funding any kind of public education.

There should not be any difficulty of states assisting religiously affiliated schools as long as the State's educational standards are met.

(And for those coming alive about Moslem "madrasses;" there is no way a wahhabi-style madrass is going to meet any State's educational standards.)

I Callahan said...

Move to tax-free Somalia or Afghanistan, where your nursery school level slogan plays out in real life in it's absence.

Right, because those are such libertarian paradises...

Oh, wait...the power to then form armed groups of Freedom Lovers! is also the power to destroy and extort money and behaviors from those the Freedom Lovers subjugate! Be they Talibani or young black thugs roaming neighborhoods in machine gun mounted pickup trucks.
My word! Another slippery slope!


Just how does the above gibberish discount that the power to tax is the power to destroy? Are you making some other kind of point here?

Just one libertarian assholes neglect to mention.

Look, C4, if you want to bend over and take it with no aid of Vaseline, go right ahead. A lot of us are sick of people like you who excuse this administration's incursions into our lives as a whole. Just explain where it ends with non-libertarian assholes, and at least we can have a discussion about it.

Calypso Facto said...

Again, I'll ask to any lawyers in the crowd, can we now do away with things like: "Contracts estimated to be over $25,000 require the submission of an affirmative action plan by the contractor." ??

garage mahal said...

Or, the IRS might actually discriminate against conservative groups for petitioning against the Obama administration.

"John Shafer, who described himself as "a conservative Republican," told congressional investigators he flagged the first application for tax-exempt status from a Tea Party-aligned group that he and a lower-level agent came across in February 2010 because it was a new, high-profile issue.

Asked if the lower-level agent sought to elevate the case to Washington because he disagreed with Tea Party politics, Shafer said that was not the case.

"We never, never discussed any political, personal aspirations whatsoever," he said, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by Reuters on Tuesday."

No wonder Issa didn't want that testimony to be released.

Jay said...

This is why people like you are so paranoid that Democrats are out to get them

Says the person screeching about John Doe #2, secret routers, and Walker's student appointment.

You have no self-awareness.

Gahrie said...

And it's Bush's fault, too, for all of Obama's screwups.

You know what? If President Obama had a record of fixing President Bush's screw ups the way that Gov. Walker has a record for fixing the Democrats' screw ups you would have a point.

The problem is, he doesn't. In fact his record is one of continuing and enlarging Bush's screw ups, along with making more of his own.

I'm actually a little curious...what exactly has President Obama successfully done to correct one of President Bush's "mistakes"?

Jay said...

John Shafer, who described himself as "a conservative Republican,"

No link, of course.

Let me help you, assclown:

Shafer’s testimony makes clear that the criteria seemed to be set in Washington. Cummings claimed the transcript shows there was no concerted White House involvement in the targeting of political opponents, while Issa maintains there is still insufficient detail to make that assertion.

Under questioning, Shafer pushed back on the original IRS explanation that a couple of “rogue” agents in Cincinnati were to blame for the targeting of tea party groups.

“We do have a number of checks and balances that would lend me to believe that whatever the definition of a rogue agent is, which I don’t know, it would be difficult for me to believe that,” he said.


OOPS!

Don't worry, all these words and facts are all confusing for you. We know that.

Pastafarian said...

It's those damned conservative Republicans, going after Tea Party groups. I mean, you've got proof right there: That guy is clearly a conservative Republican. He says so, after all.

And clearly he would have no reason to lie. And obviously he's the only guy involved, and the whole mess begins and ends with him. All of those other IRS employees who said they didn't have the authority to initiate this locally and it had to come from DC -- they were suffering from a mass delusion.

Case closed. Let's move on. Inspector Asshole garage mahal has put this whole sordid affair to bed.

Jay said...

Asked if the lower-level agent sought to elevate the case to Washington because he disagreed with Tea Party politics, Shafer said that was not the case.

Hysterical.

You've successfully argued against a postion nobody is taking.

Don't worry, all these words and facts are confusing for you. We know that.

Calypso Facto said...

Or, the IRS might actually discriminate against conservative groups for petitioning against the Obama administration.

Here's the opposite take from a recent Stockholm U / Harvard paper, gm:

"President Obama's margin of victory in some of the key swing states was fairly small: a mere 75,000 votes separated the two contenders in Florida, for example. That is less than 25% of our estimate of what the Tea Party's impact in Florida was in 2010. Looking forward to 2012 in 2010 undermining the Tea Party's efforts there must have seemed quite appealing indeed. . . .
It might be purely accidental that the government targeted precisely this biggest threat to the president. It may just be that a bureaucracy dominated by liberals picked up on not-so-subtle dog whistles from its political leadership. Or, it might be that direct orders were given." h/t Taranto

Gahrie said...

John Shafer, who described himself as "a conservative Republican,

I describe myself as a sexy, wealthy supermodel.

Doesn't make me one.

MadisonMan said...

If President Obama had a record of fixing President Bush's screw ups the way that Gov. Walker has a record for fixing the Democrats' screw ups you would have a point.

If they are fixed, why is he still worried to distraction?

Jay said...

garage posts an excerpt from a story showing that a low level staffer didn't refer Tea Party cases to DC for political purposes.

Hilarity ensues, considering the people in DC were asking for the referrals, for political purposes.

Note: garage can't understand these distinctions and differences.

Gahrie said...

If they are fixed, why is he still worried to distraction?

1) The incident we are discussing took place while he was still early in the process of fixing the problems.

2) Progressives have been running Wisconsin for well over 100 years, it's going to take a while to fix all that stupid.

Jay said...

Soon garage will be attacking this guy:

Shafer said he was in charge of the tax agency's first look at all tax-exemption applications sent to Cincinnati. Forms that needed a closer look were sent to another unit, he said.

"On an annual basis there would be upwards to 70,000 applications" submitted to the Cincinnati office, he said. "On a monthly basis there would be 4,000 to 5,000 applications that would go through my group."


Mainly because it can't be credibly argued that Shafer represents the entirety of the Cincinnati.

Again, garage is really, really stupid.

Terry said...

Obama forced political appointee Van Jones to resign, simply because Jones' truth was that the hijacked airliners and the subsequent destruction of the WTC were acts committed by agents of the US government, rather than Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist group.
Fish rot from the head, my friends.
From the head.

MadisonMan said...

2) Progressives have been running Wisconsin for well over 100 years, it's going to take a while to fix all that stupid.

Now you're just talking nonsense.

Here's a hint for you: Look at the Governor's Office in the past 34 years in Wisconsin. For nearly 2/3rd of that time, a Republican was Governor.

Sigivald said...

Some pun said: I favor a hiring system that doesn't discriminate against people who exercised their constitutional rights to sign a recall petition. So yes.

Appointments are not a hiring system in any normal sense we care about.

The entire point of appointment systems is that the executive can pick whoever they want, and precisely the they are meant to pick people whose viewpoints and agenda they agree with.

That's why only some positions are by appointment, and they're typically other executive positions.

Understanding the separation of powers is hard, though...

Hagar said...

I don't think there was any necessity for "orders" to come down from Washington; they all belong to the same party - or Party - and understand each other perfectly without any need for "orders." It is just a two-way street.

Calypso Facto said...

"We never, never discussed any political, personal aspirations whatsoever," he said, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by Reuters on Tuesday."

Garage has found one low-level IRS staffer who claims his actions weren't unethically motivated -- yay!

I don't get your obstinacy here at all; you're aware that the IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, IRS Director Lois Lerner, and IRS Supervisor Holly Paz have all ADMITTED that conservative groups were inappropriately targeted for extra scrutiny, right?

Gahrie said...

Here's a hint for you: Look at the Governor's Office in the past 34 years in Wisconsin. For nearly 2/3rd of that time, a Republican was Governor.

Are you seriously trying to deny the fact that progressives, and progressivism have been the dominant political force in Wisconsin for the last 100 years?

Most of those Republican governors are famous for trying to force reform on a hostile legislature.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

garage mahal,

Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin.

Regardless of the specifics of the case you're talking about (where I have to say that I think you have the worse of the argument), you've managed to derail the thread from its intended topic almost immediately. Said topic being Eugene Volokh's distinction between speech forbidden to entities receiving government grants, and speech compelled of entities seeking them.

Does that distinction matter? I think it does. It has absolutely zilch to do with the student regent appointment, because there was no compelled speech at issue there.

garage mahal said...

IRS scandal = not one Tea Party group denied status.

Walker "fixing" things = near dead last in the country on the economy.

Wheeee!

Patrick said...

Walker "fixing" things = near dead last in the country on the economy.

MN new jobs: 8400

WI new jobs:12,700

Advantage: Walker.

Patrick said...

No wonder Issa didn't want that testimony to be released.

No wonder Garage didn't show all of the testimony.

FIFY

Calypso Facto said...

not one Tea Party group denied status

Because slowrolling (up to 3 years!) reviews is not "denying"? Or having dozens of applicants withdraw when harassing information was requested against standing policy?

So I guess if Walker had just told Joshua Inglett he had to submit (and re-submit, and re-submit) all his personal info, contact lists, etc., and wait for 3 years to be notified if was to be appointed or not (and in the meantime someone else would do the job), that would've been cool?

garage mahal said...

MN new jobs: 8400

WI new jobs:12,700


Not sure what you're citing, or from where. But Wisconsin went from 11th to 44th on job creation under Walker's watch. Minnesota has less people living there than Wisconsin but more people working.

tim maguire said...

Wait a minute, so it's unconstitutional for the government, when making funding decisions, to look at how the money will be spent and decide it wants to fund some things but not others?

Since when?

Revenant said...

Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin.

Garage thinks the only way to get a job is by political appointment? That explains a lot about his economic beliefs.

geokstr said...

garage mahal said...
IRS scandal = not one Tea Party group denied status.


Wow. Talking points memorized well.

There are still dozens of groups that have not received determinations after years of waiting.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that applications from the driving force behind the Republican tsunami in 2010 were all delayed until just after the 2012 elections.

And leftists love to complain about non-existent voter suppression by Republicans.

PianoLessons said...

I'm always amazed with a clear prompt from Ann to talk about the power of a "tax" that her followers have no clue and immediately digress into non-related local issues.

Supreme Court Justice ROberts clearly called Obamacare a "tax" and not a "fine".

The issue here is that if Amish and Mennonites and maybe Muslims or whoever are exempted from Obamacare regs because of religion......

where else in our US Tax code are "religions" given exemption from taxation of a mandate to buy a product.

The Obamacare thing is a lot like Gay Marriage....we can't know the consequences of the bill until it's enacted and in motion to see the parties lines up to challenge it.

Me - if SCOTUS allows gay marriage, there will be a huge influx of lawsuits from gay people (all orchestrated and ready to spring into action) who will sue Christian bakeries for not baking them wedding cakes.....or evangilist florists or wedding planners who will refuse to support gay marriage clients.....we have lots out there now to prove these spring lawsuits are waiting to "unspring"....

and as for Ocare - if the Amish are exempt from this tax based on religion, why not me and my religion.

BTW - Ocare was designed to fail - written by Big Pharm and unions (with Obama being very disinterested as his only goal is to create chaos in USA in order to get us to universal healthcare)...

I'm kind of amazed your readers can't connect dots, Ann. I guess all politics really are local.



Terry said...

Here's the BLS chart that shows job growth (or decline) by state:
http://beta.bls.gov/maps/cew/us
I can't see a red/blue partisan pattern in it.
Wisconsin is bracketed by Connecticut and Missouri.

Synova said...

"There are still dozens of groups that have not received determinations after years of waiting."

Because never getting approved is completely different from being denied.

Nor is withdrawing applications because the IRS asks you the content of your prayers and for all your email correspondence even remotely like being denied.

clint said...

Good grief.

I was really looking forward to seeing what folks here thought about the ruling.

Anyone?

Terry said...

P.Lessons wrote:
if SCOTUS allows gay marriage, there will be a huge influx of lawsuits from gay people (all orchestrated and ready to spring into action) who will sue Christian bakeries for not baking them wedding cakes.....or evangilist florists or wedding planners who will refuse to support gay marriage clients.....we have lots out there now to prove these spring lawsuits are waiting to "unspring"....


That cannot be. It sounds like bullying, and we all know that gay people are only ever victims of bullying, never bullies themselves.

PianoLessons said...

Here's Gay Nesson - a committed gay activist - admitting gay marriage is being sold as a lie:

sorry for Glenn Beck link (who I don't really watch) but this has been scrubbed from many sites since end of April 2013:

http://www.inquisitr.com/641413/gay-marriage-is-a-lie-lesbian-masha-gessen-and-glenn-beck-agree/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/big-same-sex-marriage-lie-article-1.1334665

PianoLessons said...

Here's the "bumper sticker" version of the ciral Gay Neeson speech on You Tube and European websites (like I said, USA gay activists have been successful in scrubbing out this story)"

Gay Neeson's essential hypothesis:

“Gay marriage is a lie. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriageelasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’ ”


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/641413/gay-marriage-is-a-lie-lesbian-masha-gessen-and-glenn-beck-agree/#mSJ3kmt2Bp3wgrcf.99

PianoLessons said...

BTW Althouse and readers - are any of you aware of the way France (and soon other European nations) has reacted to Gay Marriage Law?

Google it in case you don't know.

Come on folks - if you are at all legal type people - you all know that Yale President's wife was all set up to sue in Griswold vs Connecticut which led to Roe v Wade...

Are you ever learning about the build up and backstories to major SCOTUS decisions?

Should we start looking into how many of your law school texts have been "altered?"

Michael said...

Garage. Looking forward to the day the IRS can be turned on the lefties. We wont deny a single application for tax exemption. Not a single one. Nor will one be approved.

garage mahal said...

Garage. Looking forward to the day the IRS can be turned on the lefties. We wont deny a single application for tax exemption. Not a single one. Nor will one be approved.

They should all be shut down and we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with any of it.

Cedarford said...

I Callahan - above gibberish discount that the power to tax is the power to destroy?

It is a stupid slogan - as in any organized human society outside the fantasy libertarians have of the Lone Hero that needs nuthin' from others and asks nuthin be taken - the allocation of resources for compensation for specialization of labor and tasks requires some rules based redistribution based on reward and punishment.
Call it taxes.
Or call it demand that cave dwellers that got the berries and meat give some to aged members that reared those back when they were too young to hunt or dig up roots.
All call it how things are redistributed in a commune.

Simple human progress.

And the stupid slogan can be applied to other matters quite easily and spouted as something "profound".

* The power to harnass fire is the power to destroy!
*Taming horses also means man has a better power to destroy
*Making steel means the power to destroy
*Any country with a military is in danger of being destroyed by the same Army once the slippery slope is underway
*The right to keep and bear firearms is also the power to destroy others.


Crimso said...

"Petty, vindictive, revengeful, and most of all, just sheer incompetence."

Then the transition from the Obama administration to the Walker one in 2017 should be remarkably seamless.

Michael said...

Garage. The bully always wants peace when he finds himself on the bottom. No, I think we sould have a turn.

Mark said...

And this started out about Walker how?

Groups does not equal individuals who lobby against their employers.

Mark said...

They should all be shut down and we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with any of it.

I'm guessing garage won't be seeing any more of that Soros money any time soon.

Mark said...

Cedarford, you wouldn't know a Libertarian if a mob of them came up to you, said "You know nothing John Snow", and proceeded to serially rub noogies on your head.

Think wagon trains, Trotskyite.

Terry said...

Or call it demand that cave dwellers that got the berries and meat give some to aged members that reared those back when they were too young to hunt or dig up roots.

Except cave dwellers didn't do that.
Really, Cedarford, you should write something, read it, ask yourself 'does this make me look like an idiot?' and only if it does not, hit the 'publish your comment' button.

Mark said...

Not sure what you're citing, or from where. But Wisconsin went from 11th to 44th on job creation under Walker's watch.

And you post that without a cite. Please cite.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin


Really? I want you to post that law, citation, or regulation on here or further disgrace yourself as the abhorrent liar you are. Why Althouse tolerates you is a mystery. Maybe it's because you live in the same state or city. I don't know, but your lies cannot go unpunished any longer, you disgusting mongoloid of the left.

Methadras said...

MadisonMan said...

I presume Garage refers to the Regent Appointee (the student one, I think) who was appointed by Walker, and then de-appointed when it was revealed (not sure by whom) that Appointee had signed the recall petition? Given money to some anti-Walker group? (I'm not sure).

If Walker wants complete loyalty, why doesn't he exercise due-er diligence when making an appointment? Ideally, the due-est of diligence.


That isn't a law. Try again.

Methadras said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zrimsek said...

Resolved: That the first person to mention Somalia shall be held thereby to have lost the argument to everyone, including the first person to mention Hitler.

Rusty said...

Methadras said...
garage mahal said...

Signing a recall petition can disqualify you from working in Wisconsin

Really? I want you to post that law, citation, or regulation on here or further disgrace yourself as the abhorrent liar you are. Why Althouse tolerates you is a mystery. Maybe it's because you live in the same state or city. I don't know, but your lies cannot go unpunished any longer, you disgusting mongoloid of the left.


Once you realize he is a committed true believer and he will gleefully lie in service of his beliefs, you can pretty much dismiss anything he says unless its about fishing or dogs, and the fishing is kind of iffy.
Just ignore him.