Kentucky muni bond interest case decided in favor of states

Thanks for posting that, Mark.

Katie in San Diego

Based on the Case Number 06-666, the decision by the Supreme Court was predictable!

with a possibility of upsetting the muni-bond market rather than with the violation of the Constitution. That should come as no big surpise!

Cheers,

WDK

I didn't find it surprising at all. When a state exempts its own bond interest from taxation, it benefits financially by encouraging more people to buy bonds at lower interest. If they were to exempt bond interest from other states, they would be losing financially. It's not considered discrimination if it's related to an actual cost/benefit to the state.

Stu

But if a state taxed corn imported from other states, and not corn grown in itself, that would be unconstitutional discrimination, even though it provides an actual cost/benefit to farmers in that state (and thereby to the state itself by increasing collections of state income tax).

Seth

Yes, fine lines are drawn here. The Court disapproves of "economic protectionism" affecting the private markets, but when the state itself is a party to the transaction, it allows more leeway. The most interesting part of the decision, actually, is the many partial and total dissents. The Court is certainly not all in agreement on these issues. Seven of them came to the same conclusion, but not all for the same reasons. The decision is available here:

0&invol-666&friend=nytimes It's also true that, to extend Seth's example, there would be no constitutional problem with the state providing a grant or price support payment directly to its corn farmers. It's only when a state attempts to protect its own producers by means of the tax system that it gets into constitutional trouble. I think that's one reason why J. Thomas says he would never apply the dormant commerce clause under any circumstances. As far as he's concerned, the states can do whatever they want under the commerce clause as long as Congress doesn't enact a law preventing it.

Katie in San Diego

But if out of state farmers buy local property and farm it, the fact that they are not residents should not disqualify them from such subsidies based on their in-state farms. It's like state universities that charge residents a lower tuition than non-residents. But once a student becomes a resident (e.g. by living in the state for one year), he must be eligible for the lower tuition.

Personally I think Thomas has some odd ideas of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court. For example he has no respect for precedent - he's said as much - even though that is the basis of the common law system.

Stu

Has he actually said that, or has he said that he has no respect for precedent when it conflicts with what the Constitution says? Which is a completely different statement and attitude than what you ascribe to him.

-- Rich Carreiro snipped-for-privacy@rlcarr.com

This is what Justice Thomas says in _Davis_, quoting himself from his dissents in other cases including _United Haulers_:

"I agree with the Court that Kentucky's differential tax scheme is constitutional. But rather than apply a body of doctrine that 'has no basis in the Constitution and has proved unworkable in practice,' I would entirely 'discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.'"

This is not disrespect for precedent in general; it's disrespect for precedents that, in his mind, do not comport with the Constitution. Actually, Scalia doesn't believe the Constitution supports the dormant commerce clause either; however, he will follow specific precedents, as he said in _Quill_ and says again in _Davis_.

Katie in San Diego

'

In my opinion he has no respect for precedent because he won't follow any rule or ruling that doesn't agree with his personal view of constitutional jurisprudence. It doesn't matter that something has been an accepted rule for many years. It doesn't matter that great thinkers believe the Constitution means something that conflicts with Thomas's ideas. To him he's the only one in the world whose opinion counts.

Stu

Generally those intent on precendent are only True Believers when something they agree with is up for decision. Otherwise, many (no matter which precendent one is holding sancrosanct from whichever political view) precedent is merely getting in the way of Making Needed Changes.

"Stuart Bronstein" wrote

To suggest a Justice ignore his or her own logic and interpretations and defer to others is inconsistent with why we have nine Justices; judicial tenure; a multi-leveled federal court system; etc. Stare decisis is a strongly preferred guide, but history shows that the Court can and will, after careful consideration, overturn past decisions. The law ultimately reflects society's mores, which do change, surely as you know.

One cannot single out one Justice for not following stare decisis (from time to time) when so many other Justices have done likewise, and often to good effect, given our bumbling society. If one has a problem with Justice XYZ, then the solution is to elect a President and a Senate who will nominate and confirm ABC. The problem has never been J. Thomas but instead all those who supported Bush 1 and those senators who voted to confirm Thomas, which means the problem lies in those who backed Bush 1 and these senators.

Katie wrote: I think that's one reason why J.

It's probably too late to move this good dialog regarding a Supreme Court justice over to misc.legal.moderated, but if the replies not related to taxes continue, please consider putting an "OT: blah blah" notation (OT = "off topic") at the beginning of the subject line to alert readers.

Yours for making the moderator's lives easier,

-Mark Bole

There are certain conventions in the law that are generally accepted as important in our legal system. One is that there be predictability in the meaning of our laws. Except when an established interpretation of a law is manifestly harmful to society, changing the law is up to the legislature, not to the court.

Additionally, as you say, times change and the interpretations of laws change based on society's beliefs and past experience.

But Thomas seems to reject all of that. He rejects predictability, he rejects the concept of changing rules only when necessary. And he rejects the idea that times change and that rules should change, basing his decisions on what he thinks the rule should have been in 1789.

Certainly on occasion other justices have voted to over turn precedent. But most often they attempt to follow precedent and distinguish cases based on other facts or applicable laws. They believe in predictability and don't throw out the whole system based on their beliefs that they are the one true source of knowledge, rather than interpreters of it.

Stu

"Stuart Bronstein" wrote

Changing the law can be up to the people (via the Constitutional Amendment process); the courts; to some extent executive branch agencies; and so on and so forth blah blah pedantry. We disagree.

Your generalization on Thomas is noted. This has become political and off-topic.

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Since this has gotten too far from taxes and is quite off topic, let's end this discusion.