Why we need conservative, pro-life Supreme Court Justices

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supreme Court also decided today that Trump must release his tax records
 
I am all for conservatism, but the Republican Party blew it by getting behind their current standard-bearer. Shame on them for not doing better.
 
Katolikuss said:
What would happen to the ones who violate the law against the no work on sabbath?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. What happened when we had “blue laws” in this country?
Katolikuss said:
Or who do not respect their parents?
Click to expand...
That falls outside the province of civil law. As I said, “not challenged, denied or violated”, “informed by, and compatible with”. Not all sins need be crimes.
Online_Knight said:
I am all for conservatism, but the Republican Party blew it by getting behind their current standard-bearer. Shame on them for not doing better.
Click to expand...
It just “kind of happened”. It is indeed a sad state of affairs.
Katolikuss said:
40.png
Dolphin:
Supreme Court also decided today that Trump must release his tax records
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. I had a beer to celebrate this ruling. And it was a good Trappist beer, too! Gotta love the Trappist monks!
Click to expand...
While a President may not be Constitutionally required to release his tax records, it’s only the statesmanlike and ethical thing to do, to release them voluntarily. The people are entitled to know.

This said, Trump’s tax records are bound to be a whole lot more complicated, than those of the typical American, or the typical Presidential candidate. All the more reason for the people to need to be able to see them.
 
Last edited:
The decision was that the DA of Manhattan can access his records after the election but the House cannot upon their bill motion.

As such, yes, the ruling says Trump must release his tax records
 
Katolikuss said:
40.png
Dolphin:
As such, yes, the ruling says Trump must release his tax records
Click to expand...
Yes, and it is a huge slap on his face. His criminal activities of overestimating his assets when he applied for new loans, and underestimating their value when it came to taxation will be exposed, and hopefully he will serve some jail time for them. Remember, Al Capone was never punished for his murders, but was for tax evasion.
Click to expand...
Trump being Trump, he (or his lawyers) would argue that the assets were worth more when he applied for the loans, but had fallen in value by the time the taxes were filed. Depreciation is a thing.

As a side note, we were always taught in real estate classes that land never depreciates. I never bought that. If I own land, and a sinkhole develops underneath it, or if it is permanently flooded, that land is worthless to me, unless I can find a way to use it (such as building boat slips or fishing piers where my land used to be).
 
Katolikuss said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Trump being Trump, he (or his lawyers) would argue that the assets were worth more when he applied for the loans, but had fallen in value by the time the taxes were filed. Depreciation is a thing.
Click to expand...
Every crook has an excuse. Funny that the value of the same property keeps fluctuating depending on Trump’s buying attempt and/or taxation time.
Click to expand...
I’m sure there will be enough there, to keep many lawyers able to put food on their table and pay the mortgage. Makes my brain hurt even to think of how much there is to untangle.
 
You said, and I quote, “They should be able to hire and fire for any reason under the sun.” The plaintiffs in the case in question were fired for having cancer and for being older.
 
I said they should be allowed to. That doesn’t mean I agree with it. That doesn’t mean I think it’s right.
 
Last edited:
Why should they be allowed to when no other employer is allowed to? Just taking the Catholic view, these people aren’t ministers by any definition the RCC uses. But now the church when its convenient to discriminate against them can declare them so. Nevermind that it’s a system that will be rife with abuse by any religion.
 
You think all employers should be allowed to fire all employees for any reason then?

Again I ask, why?
 
RuthAnne said:
They shouldn’t. All employers should be allowed to.
Click to expand...
Accepting there is no need for the law to outlaw every immoral act, why would it be better for the law to permit an employer to arbitrarily discriminate - Eg. To deny Jews a right to come into my shop. ( I assume you agree that’s not a morally good choice.)
 
If I own a business I should have the freedom to run it as I see best. I have the right to sell and I have the right to fail. It’s not that complicated.
 
RuthAnne said:
If I own a business I should have the freedom to run it as I see best. I have the right to sell and I have the right to fail. It’s not that complicated.
Click to expand...
This is no reasoning at all and does not answer my question. Just an assertion of a “right”. What makes you believe that “owning a business” confers such rights of behaviour on you. Does it also confer the “right” to slander the occasional customer entering the premises?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top