Billionaire "friends" of Alito and Thomas have business before the court

[Tommy Tainant]

Billionaire-linked US thinktank behind supreme court wealth tax case lobbying

Manhattan Institute one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the court to hear Moore v US

www.theguardian.com

An influential thinktank closely linked to two billionaires who provided lavish travel gifts to conservative supreme court justices is behind a successful lobbying campaign to get the US high court to take on a case that could protect them and other billionaires from a possible future wealth tax.

The Manhattan Institute was one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the supreme court to take on Moore v US, a $15,000 tax case that Democrats have warned could permanently “lock in” the right of billionaires to opt out of paying fair taxes.

The billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer is chairman of the Manhattan Institute and Kathy Crow, who is married to the real estate mogul Harlan Crow, serves as a trustee of the group. Both have provided two of the justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, respectively – with private travel gifts and have socialised with the judges on lavish vacations, according to reports in ProPublica and other media outlets.

This is a test for these high living Supreme Court Justices. They can hardly pass judgement on their friends and then claim that justice is blind.

Their friends may feel that they have invested enough in their "friendships" to expect some payback ove this.

Will these upstanding men recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest ? I think that they should.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It might be a bit complex for you oddball.

 

[Votto]

We simply can't have corruption in government.

You know, the GOP kind.

 

[lennypartiv]

Does Tommy not understand that in America we're free to spend our money as we wish?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Does Tommy not understand that in America we're free to spend our money as we wish?

Buying judges ?

 

[Libby von H]

Billionaire-linked US thinktank behind supreme court wealth tax case lobbying

Manhattan Institute one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the court to hear Moore v US

www.theguardian.com

An influential thinktank closely linked to two billionaires who provided lavish travel gifts to conservative supreme court justices is behind a successful lobbying campaign to get the US high court to take on a case that could protect them and other billionaires from a possible future wealth tax.

The Manhattan Institute was one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the supreme court to take on Moore v US, a $15,000 tax case that Democrats have warned could permanently “lock in” the right of billionaires to opt out of paying fair taxes.

The billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer is chairman of the Manhattan Institute and Kathy Crow, who is married to the real estate mogul Harlan Crow, serves as a trustee of the group. Both have provided two of the justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, respectively – with private travel gifts and have socialised with the judges on lavish vacations, according to reports in ProPublica and other media outlets.

This is a test for these high living Supreme Court Justices. They can hardly pass judgement on their friends and then claim that justice is blind.

Their friends may feel that they have invested enough in their "friendships" to expect some payback ove this.

Will these upstanding men recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest ? I think that they should.S

See, this is why you would justifiably starve to death as a lawyer.

We are supposed to give life and personhood to a 'think tank' !!! Moore v US has multiple amici curiae as you yourself admit.
Yet you are affraid to publish any of them I AM NOT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OFLAW AND LINGUISTICS IN SUPPORT OFNEITHER PARTY

"This case requires the Court to determine whether unrealized gains count as “incomes” under theSixteenth Amendment. The original public meaning ofthe constitutional text should inform that inquiry"

See, you are just so far off base that you should be censured by all respectable adults.

 

[Libby von H]

Billionaire-linked US thinktank behind supreme court wealth tax case lobbying

Manhattan Institute one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the court to hear Moore v US

www.theguardian.com

An influential thinktank closely linked to two billionaires who provided lavish travel gifts to conservative supreme court justices is behind a successful lobbying campaign to get the US high court to take on a case that could protect them and other billionaires from a possible future wealth tax.

The Manhattan Institute was one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the supreme court to take on Moore v US, a $15,000 tax case that Democrats have warned could permanently “lock in” the right of billionaires to opt out of paying fair taxes.

The billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer is chairman of the Manhattan Institute and Kathy Crow, who is married to the real estate mogul Harlan Crow, serves as a trustee of the group. Both have provided two of the justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, respectively – with private travel gifts and have socialised with the judges on lavish vacations, according to reports in ProPublica and other media outlets.

This is a test for these high living Supreme Court Justices. They can hardly pass judgement on their friends and then claim that justice is blind.

Their friends may feel that they have invested enough in their "friendships" to expect some payback ove this.

Will these upstanding men recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest ? I think that they should.

YEah, sounds good but utterly irrelevant as the amicus brief of Americans for Tax Reform shows


"Granting this petition would allow the Court tor eaffirm the Sixteenth Amendment’s realization requirement. Absent such intervention, the panel’s decision threatens to upend the longstanding norm that unrealized gains do not qualify as income in the constitutional sense. The Court should step in now to enforce the textual and historical limits on the Sixteenth Amendment."

YAAAAAWN