Comments on: Social activism, the law, and the 501(c)(4) route

By: cecil

cecil — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:52:51 +0000

Part of the problem of government is that it has too much money to do as it please. Less money==less government interference. I concur, axe the IRS.

By: D

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:57:13 +0000

I would favor total abandonment of the IRS. 🙂

By: Slugger

Slugger — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:53:49 +0000

I would favor total abandonment of tax advantaged giving of all kinds. If you want to fight some disease, support your local ballet company, or just go to a party under the guise of a charity function, please indulge your interests without involving the tax man. If you want to support a politician, not only shouldn’t you get a tax break, a penalty might be in order.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 03:44:56 +0000

Sometimes the question comes up, why the Republicans felt entitled to block Obama from shifting SCotUS to the left (replacing Scalia with Garland), when Democrats allowed Nixon, Reagan and Bush Senior to push it to the right.

Arguably, it was the same issue Walter mentions here– that even after Nixon nudged the court rightwards (mainly on law-and-order issues), progressives still supported judicial power, for which acceptance would vanish if Democrats blocked Republican nominees on explicitly political grounds. For example, the Nixon-Burger court issued Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion nationwide. Also in the early 1970s, Nixon’s law-and-order agenda (as it related to judicial appointments) was a formidable vote-winner.

In recent years, however, progressives have noted that judicial boldness has become more likely to reinforce the right, eg revival of the Second Amendment, and “Citizens United”, vs legalization of gay marriage.