Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky

And I can't believe Kennedy would overturn. I am even doubtful about Rehnquist. So who is going to side with Thomas and
Scalia?


Bush probably won't be able to appoint anyone, but if he does it will just be one bite at the apple. Specter won't get replaced in the middle of the process.

Didn't rehnquist dissent in Roe itself? Not that he'll be around when the next opportunity arises.

How will Bush not get to appoint anyone? Are you saying that the Chief's seat will remain vacant for 4 years? I don't see that happening. As obstructionist at the Dems are and as willfully blind to the lack of a sufficient majority that the R's are, Rehnquist's successor will be sworn in by Thanksgiving of this year. And Bush will get at least one more appointment--either Stevens or O'Connor (or both) will need replacing in 2006 or 2007.

[whoopassman]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


EATA Hm. whoopassman . . . whoopasshole . . . whoopasinine. Ill-considered name.

ltl/fb was already taken.

And it wasn't Hawaii, it was Saba. And also Jackson Hole.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't rehnquist dissent in Roe itself? Not that he'll be around when the next opportunity arises.

How will Bush not get to appoint anyone? Are you saying that the Chief's seat will remain vacant for 4 years? I don't see that happening. As obstructionist at the Dems are and as willfully blind to the lack of a sufficient majority that the R's are, Rehnquist's successor will be sworn in by Thanksgiving of this year. And Bush will get at least one more appointment--either Stevens or O'Connor (or both) will need replacing in 2006 or 2007.

Of course the court has changed since Casey (1992??), but I seem to recall a count that had Kennedy being the determining factor. And not being all that committed to what he was doing.

Basically, some people have boiled his logic down to ...if we announce that Roe was a mistake, we'll look stoopid. Nevertheles, I don't even recall who was who in Casey. A long time ago.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are trying to justify your position, when that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the court will overturn. It won't overturn for long time to come, if ever.

I could see things coming quickly to a head, in a sort of Schiavo scenario. Pro-life biological father convinces a legislature to grant a guardian to a fetus that the mother wishes to abort. Lower court in MS or similar jurisdiction "errs on the side of life." Other jurisdictions quickly follow suit, forcing the SC's hand. Constitutional hilarity ensues.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That to me is an interesting question--don't the computers that churn through these things know? Like when they bitch me out for adding 2+2 and getting 3?

I've been figuring, why calculate the AMT. Just send in the return, adn get the calculation done for you, and then pay the extra, with some interest.

They're slowly updating, but the computers the IRS uses until very recently have been second-hand Commodore 64s.

And you could let the IRS figure it for you, but TurboTax is generally cheaper.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wanker, you are supposed to charge people who intentionally cheat a premium rate. I am assuming that you will be giving him the GA discount from the premium "deliberate tax cheater" rate.

Perhaps I should explain.

I am a bitter old solo who was in BIGLAW pre-Gunderson Effect. My GA discount is factored by adding to my real people rate 10% of the excess of their salary over mine when I was their age.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You and Chad really need to get together.

In a sense they have. I'm pretty sure they're both socks of the same foot. So to speak.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wanker, do you feel I need the "special needs" discount to do my taxes?

No, dear. You are eminently qualified to do your taxes. And you are far more qualified to discuss benefits policy than I ever hope to be.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I could see things coming quickly to a head, in a sort of Schiavo scenario. Pro-life biological father convinces a legislature to grant a guardian to a fetus that the mother wishes to abort. Lower court in MS or similar jurisdiction "errs on the side of life." Other jurisdictions quickly follow suit, forcing the SC's hand. Constitutional hilarity ensues.

If the twisted amorally relativistic society that the liberals are trying to treasonously infiltrate on the good people of this nation can succeed in effecting the state sponsored barbaric starvation and thirst deprivation murder of a physically disabled woman then it would seem to follow that the sadistically brutal disemberment and murder of unborn children is a non-issue.

We can only pray that the grace of God prevails or at least has mercy on the faithful.

As Proverbs 8:35,36 instructs us:

For whoever finds Me finds life and receives favor from the LORD. But whoever fails to find Me harms himself; all who hate Me (like Michael Schiavo and his supporters) love death.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No, dear. You are eminently qualified to do your taxes. And you are far more qualified to discuss benefits policy than I ever hope to be.

That's just adorable.

[taxwonk]

It's Friday. Abortion's already at the plate. Let's put another fun topic on deck.

The Administration is all atwitter about so-called tort reform, particulary in med mal, arguing it's driving up health care costs and driving docs out of town. Bush insists that if we don't put a cap on pain and suffering and punitive damages, we'll all be forced to become home surgeons and midwives.

Suppose we put a cap on pain and suffering damages at, say, $250,000. And suppose we cap punitives at the lesser of $100,000 per year of the plaintiff's life expectancy or $2.5 million. That would, according to the insurance industry and their paid shills -- er, duly elected government officials -- dramatically reduce insurance costs, thus keeping doctors around and lowering health care costs for everyone.

Okay, I'll bite. But here's the catch. The legislation enacting "tort reform" also has to spread the benefit of these cost savings. Medical liability insurers, health care insurers, health care providers, and pharmaceutical companies all have to reduce their rates and charges, across the board, by some percentage, say 15%.

Anybody still interested in tort reform if the benefit doesn't stay in their shareholders' pockets?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's just adorable.

I think this means we're friends now.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by taxwonk
They're slowly updating, but the computers the IRS uses until very recently have been second-hand Commodore 64s.

And you could let the IRS figure it for you, but TurboTax is generally cheaper.

The IRS and all of you tax dupes can go straight to hell. My first responsibility is to God and the Ten Commandments. After that, if time permits and I feel so inclined I may file my taxes, which will show me owing nothing, but the only documentation I keep is the reservation of my second amendment rights.

Of course in effort to oppress the patriots of this nation every year around April 15, the liberal strongholds of our government will abuse its power to court order the murder of an innocent or send in the ATF and FBI assassins to shoot some supposed rebels' dogs and children or wife. Or burn a community of children with firebombs. Or kidnap an innocent child and export him to the communists.

Beware, because all of this is a smoke and mirrors warning to the sheep amongst us to pay our taxes. the liberal media elite loves to advertise this coercion. But don't be swayed, for the Lord and the Second Amendment can repel such blasphemy.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think this means we're friends now.

See, chad, the Tax Code brings people together. Granted, only very sick and disturbed people, but, hey, whatever works.

Do slave and paigow know about the Tax Code?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's Friday. Abortion's already at the plate. Let's put another fun topic on deck.

The Administration is all atwitter about so-called tort reform, particulary in med mal, arguing it's driving up health care costs and driving docs out of town. Bush insists that if we don't put a cap on pain and suffering and punitive damages, we'll all be forced to become home surgeons and midwives.

Suppose we put a cap on pain and suffering damages at, say, $250,000. And suppose we cap punitives at the lesser of $100,000 per year of the plaintiff's life expectancy or $2.5 million. That would, according to the insurance industry and their paid shills -- er, duly elected government officials -- dramatically reduce insurance costs, thus keeping doctors around and lowering health care costs for everyone.

Okay, I'll bite. But here's the catch. The legislation enacting "tort reform" also has to spread the benefit of these cost savings. Medical liability insurers, health care insurers, health care providers, and pharmaceutical companies all have to reduce their rates and charges, across the board, by some percentage, say 15%.

Anybody still interested in tort reform if the benefit doesn't stay in their shareholders' pockets?

Background reading from my home state.