Campaigning on Class warfare

[Brent Swain]

They should have it in Canada, where max tax rates have dropped from over 90% to under 54%.
The US and Canada have so many tax loopholes that most billionaires and corporations pay more than a fraction the tax percentage of working people.
The US congress and Senate are exempt from insider trading rules. By the time they finish a term, they are billionaires, and thus unlikely to make billionaires pay a fair share of taxes.

[erps]

The US congress and Senate are exempt from insider trading rules. By the time they finish a term, they are billionaires,

Name one.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by jzk

Yes, they are the final word on the matter until they decide to have another word on it.

Well, until a case comes along the appeal chain that also deals with the same issue of Constitutional law and has enough difference from preceding cases to warrant a majority of judges accepting the case (rather than reject the appeal). It's not like they can decide on their own to change the law, they can only wait until someone makes it through the system challenging it.

So yes, the possibility exists, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Most judges have a deep respect for precedent as it makes the judicial system predictable (as it should be). The judge on the Supreme Court bench who shows the least respect for precedent has also concurred with the decision... in other words, you'll need to wait for a few judges to shuffle off their mortal coil before getting another bite at the apple.

Thats fine as long as the nine life appointed Constitution "re-writer do the "right" thing. What do you do if they don't?

Well, you could, as you suggest to others change the Constitution. They can only interpret the law - not change it. So long as your change explicitly rules out the interpretation they might wish to apply, you still have power over the system. Right down to changing the conditions of a Supreme Court judge's appointment and time on the bench if you so choose.

Goose meet gander

I mean, we could have a dictator. And it would be entirely possible for the dictator to always do the right thing. Until, of course, he doesn't. Then what?

Sure you could. You'd need to change the system to have it legally though. We are talking about what can occur in the context of decisions and powers being legal right? If not, there isn't a need for me to worry about the flexibility (or lack thereof) of the Constitution

No problema, just noting it. The Cornell site is excellent in that anyone can have access to these opinions at a moment's notice.

Got it bookmarked now for the purposes of quoting the decisions in question. I still like the PDF's for reading at my own leisure

[PBzeer]

Of the top 10 richest Congress critters, as of 2010, 3 are Republicans. None are even close to being billionaires.