”Precedent” that is wrong is no precedent at all and must be overturned. You can’t base future decisions on a previous incorrect decision if you intend on those decisions to be just. If we treated precedent as a holy cow, segregation would still be in place under the separate but equal doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson - that was precedent between 1896 and 1954 - 58 years. Who says what’s good precedent and what isn’t? You’re only saying it’s “good” because you like the consequences of said precedent. That’s not how the court works - either the precedent is consistent with the law of the land or it isn’t. This chestnut is on Congress - they had *decades* to cement abortion into law. Now they can still do it, but they’re forced to double-time it, because people aren’t happy. Mid-terms are coming too, so the fight is on now, no more napping in the seats.All very nice and dandy, except that precedent and stare decisis ARE part of the constitutional order and, in general, a staple of common law countries. I've said time and again that common law is absolutely shit and barbaric (in a metaphorical sense), and this proves it.
While it is true that the legislator should not have been lazy about it, it is also true that you know, after almost half a century of good precedent, and hearings, it should not have been needed. Fact is this SCOTUS is a partisan shitshow with no pretence of the rule of law. As you said, the picks are usually of subservient stooges with ridiculous curricula, of which clarence thomas is a perfect example, a man who made no contributions at all to legal doctrine and scholarship before being put in a position of power.
The figures are directly from the IRS - you just don’t like what the figures say. That’s not my concern.I'd never ask you... and you base yourself on a clearly partisan institution that doesn't even disguise it.
EDIT: If you don’t like the source, here’s another showing that deductions shifted the tax burden from the middle class onto high earners:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax...its-tax-expenditures-higher-income-households
Here’s a direct link to IRS data - if you’re picky about sources, just ask the tax man directly. It’s very simple, this is public data. Compare figures and see for yourself, that way you avoid any possible “spin zone”. People overwhelmingly saved more on their taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-historic-table-2
Here’s an analysis of the data above, from another source you won’t like:
https://www.atr.org/irs-data-middle...ignificant-tax-reduction-from-trump-tax-cuts/
Last edited by Foxi4,