Yes. I don't think government should be in the business of marriage at all. Certainly, you shouldn't be treated differently by the government because you are married or not or have kids or don't. It doesn't. I don't care who any marries or doesn't. More specifically I am against being treated differently by my government for not being married. Make marriage a private arrangement between two (or more, I don't care) individuals that confers no advantages or disadvantages vis-a-vis the state. I don't think you should be discriminated against for not engaging in some particular contract. All of that could be done contractually without government involvement. Conferring government benefits on others who have not earned them because they married someone who did earn them I am against. Get government out of marriage. It can, though you can choose to file separately even if you are married, so there is no or small net tax benefit to not being married. Married people are given the option of potentially getting a tax advantage with no or little downside. People should also not be penalized for being married either. Just get rid of the whole concept of joint returns, head of household, or any other distinctions and have individual returns only (or better yet, just eliminate income tax altogether, but that is unrelated to marriage).
No, that's not correct. There are 5 filing statuses. If not married: single, head of household, OR widow If married: married jointly OR married separately It depends on the situation. You can be penalized for being married. You can be penalized for not being married. Google it. Tax is complicated as hell - filing status is just one aspect of it... a small one compared to others (deductions and such).
Yes, this is the essence of being libertarian. I am pretty sure I said that there can be a penalty for being married, so I don't know what you are claiming is incorrect. There are some situtations where you are penalized for being married (the standard deduction is higher for single than it is for married filing separately and more than half of married filing jointly, the tax brackets for married filing jointly are not exactly double the brackets of single at every level). All of that pales in comparison to the advantage of married filing jointly in a single income home, where you get a larger standard deductions, higher tax brackets, etc. Regardless of the relative weight each of us puts on the advantages different people have, my point is that no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged. Why would a system where every person files individually be less fair than the current system with multiple filing options? Quite the contrary. Everyone should be able to get married in whatever combination they like. They should not be advantaged or disadvantaged with regard to treatment by the government based on those decisions. Just have the government treat everyone the same.
another big year coming up Harvard admissions case: Affirmative action cases up first in November argument calendar https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/08/affirmative-action-cases-up-first-in-november-argument-calendar/ excerpt: The Supreme Court will kick off its November argument session with the highest-profile cases of that session: challenges to the consideration of race in the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. That news came with the release of the November argument calendar (as well as an updated October argument calendar) on Wednesday. The justices will hear oral argument in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College on Oct. 31, the first day of the November session. When the court agreed in January to take up the two cases, it indicated that the cases would be argued and considered together. However, after the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer and the confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who until recently served on Harvard’s board of overseers, the court announced that it would hear the cases separately, which will allow Jackson to participate in the UNC case. The affirmative action cases are two of 13 cases scheduled for oral argument in November, for a total of 10 hours of argument. Although they are the highest-profile cases on the November argument calendar, the justices will also hear oral argument in important cases involving (among other things) the power of federal district courts and the constitutionality of a federal law designed to protect against the separation of Native American families. more
related American Council of Education Claims Ending Racial Preferences in College Admissions Would Chill Speech Do First Amendment claims about racial preferences hold water? https://reason.com/2022/08/03/ameri...ces-in-college-admissions-would-chill-speech/ excerpt: The American Council of Education filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, arguing that race-conscious admissions policies are protected by the First Amendment. The trade group, which says its member schools "educate two out of every three students in all accredited, degree-granting U.S. institutions," claims that if the Court prevents universities from considering race in admissions, it would chill the speech of students who want to discuss their racial or ethnic background in their applications. The group further argues that considering race in admissions is an expression of academic freedom. The brief was submitted for consideration in two connected cases the Supreme Court will hear this fall, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The two cases were originally combined but were separated after Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the case, as she is a member of Harvard's Board of Overseers. In the lawsuits, SFFA alleges that "race-conscious" admissions practices allow elite colleges to place illegal quotas on the number of Asian-American students they admit. In particular, this is achieved by deflating the "personality" scores of Asian applicants to justify rejecting them despite stellar academic and extracurricular qualifications. However, Harvard claims that race-conscious admissions practices are necessary to create a racially diverse student body. "Knowing that experiences tied to race or ethnicity will be categorically disregarded, it seems inevitable that applicants would avoid writing about meaningful experiences that relate to their racial and ethnic identities," ACE wrote in its brief. "All applicants should be allowed and encouraged to talk about their life experiences and how they might contribute to an institution's educational environment or community commitments." But does this claim hold legal water? "The argument that a ban on race-based admission preferences would restrict the First Amendment rights of applicants, that doesn't fly," writes Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law professor and author of the Reason-hosted blog The Volokh Conspiracy. He told Reason that "applicants would remain perfectly free to say whatever they like; it's just that universities wouldn't be able to make decisions based on the applicants' race." Volokh explains further that "Title VI already prohibits universities from discriminating against racial minority applicants and in favor of whites. Does that violate the First Amendment rights of students whose applications mention experiences that disclose their race (e.g., their involvement in Polish-American cultural groups, or how they struggled as the children of poor Irish immigrants)? Of course not; it just means that the universities can't prefer applicants because they are white." more at the link
By hearing both the Harvard (a private university) and North Carolina (a public university) cases, the court has an amazing opportunity to correct two mistakes at the same time. In the UNC case, they can eliminate racially disparate laws, forbidding the consideration of race by public institutions (equal protection). In the Harvard case, they can overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964, empowering private entities to choose who they interact with using whatever criteria they like (contracts clause). It should be interesting.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elena-...lito-roe-v-wade-11663280339?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Elena Kagan’s ‘Political’ Supreme Court The Justice gives an assist to those attacking the Court’s legitimacy. By The Editorial Board Sept. 15, 2022 6:43 pm ET Justice Elena Kagan is the leading liberal on the Supreme Court now that Justice Stephen Breyer has retired, and she no doubt thinks of herself as an institutionalist. So it’s a shame to see her lending an assist to the current political attack on the High Court’s legitimacy. “When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem—and that’s when there ought to be a problem,” the Justice said Wednesday at Northwestern University School of Law. *** Political? Hmmm. Whom do you think she has in mind? Justice Kagan didn’t mentionDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case in which a majority overturned Roe v. Wade. But you don’t have to be Oliver Wendell Holmes to know that was the context, and her remarks feed the Democratic and media project to tarnish the current Court. But let’s examine that “political” charge. If the majority was being political in Dobbs, it failed in spectacular fashion. By returning abortion to the realm of politics, rather than judicial ukases, the Court has galvanized Democratic voters. Republicans who supported the end of Roe are on the backfoot politically, and it could cost them control of Congress. As for abortion and judging, note that Justice Kagan doesn’t defend Roe on the merits. Neither does any honest judge or legal academic on the political left. That’s because Roe’s logic was entirely political, an invention of Justice Harry Blackmun, a Republican appointee. The lead dissenter was Byron White, a Democratic appointee. In agreeing with Justice White’s critique of Roe, was Justice Samuel Alito being political—or correcting the historic mistake that Justice White called out at the time? Justice Kagan would no doubt say, as the three dissenters did in Dobbs, that Roe had become a durable precedent. But when are judges justified in overruling an old precedent? According to Justice Kagan at Northwestern, one such situation would be “when you’ve discovered that the doctrine that the Court has created is entirely unworkable, is usually the expression,” meaning that “a complete mess has been created.” Please see page 56 of Dobbs to find Justice Alito’s analysis of the practical difficulties of asking judges to figure out what constitutes an “undue burden” on abortion rights. States kept challenging that standard because the Court itself was never clear about the undue burden test after three Justices concocted it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. “What makes a court legitimate,” Justice Kagan also said, “is that the court is acting like a court. It’s doing something that’s recognizably law-like.” Justice Kagan doesn’t have to agree with the majority opinion in Dobbs, but it’s wild to watch her talk as if it doesn’t exist. Spend an hour or so digesting Justice Alito’s 87-page opinion, and our guess is you’ll find that it’s plenty “law-like.” Crazy idea, but maybe what’s really hurting the Supreme Court’s perceived legitimacy is that the Democratic Party, led by President Biden, is running a political campaign against it. Consider Gallup’s poll taken in July, after Dobbs, which shows approval of the Court at 43%, “statistically unchanged” from last year’s record low of 40%. That headline figure “masks big swings among partisans,” Gallup says. Republican approval is up 29 points to 72%. Democratic approval is down 23 points to 13%. *** Justice Kagan is no political naif, and it’s too bad she’s feeding this narrative about the Court by suggesting her conservative colleagues do something other than follow the law as they see it. To return Justice Kagan’s disfavor to her colleagues, our guess is that she was playing some politics herself at Northwestern. She’s warning the Justices that the “legitimacy” attacks will continue if they dare to rule in ways that progressives don’t like. She’s probably thinking in particular about the looming case on racial preferences at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Justice Kagan is no doubt frustrated that she isn’t in the majority in many of the most significant cases, but now she knows how Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas felt for decades. They never attacked the legitimacy of the Court. Justice Kagan would be wise to follow their example if she wants the public to respect the Court when her turn in the majority comes again. Appeared in the September 16, 2022, print edition as 'Elena Kagan’s ‘Political’ Court'.
Surprise surprise. The court lost legitimacy when it became a representative of Republican & Catholic values and not the US constitution.
yeah, no. I think the main point of the piece is "Justice Kagan is no doubt frustrated that she isn’t in the majority in many of the most significant cases, but now she knows how Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas felt for decades."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-su...lege-admissions-11666905779?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 The Supreme Court and Racial Preferences The Justices can reassert the principle that discriminating by race is illegal. By The Editorial Board Oct. 27, 2022 6:45 pm ET A great triumph of 20th-century American government was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It broke the back of Jim Crow and reasserted the principle that no one should be discriminated against for his race. The Supreme Court has a chance to reaffirm that vital American principle on Monday when it hears challenges to the admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina(Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina). The case is an important moment for American law but even more for the country’s social and political future. America is becoming increasingly diverse. Yet rather than assimilate this melting pot with race-neutral principles, many in our political class want to divide America into racial categories, allocating jobs, benefits and even elections based on race. The Biden Administration is trying to embed this practice across the federal government and impose it on the private economy. This is a destructive trend that will inevitably lead to more racial balkanization and enmity. *** The Supreme Court has too often assisted this racial division, notably in education. The seminal mistake was the 1978 Bakke decision in which a plurality opinion by Justice Lewis Powell opened the door to racial preferences. Universities pushed that door wide open, which the Court ratified in the misbegotten 5-4 Grutter v. Bollinger decision in 2003. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor predicted for the majority in Grutter that racial preferences wouldn’t be necessary in admissions in 25 years, but 19 years later they are even more pervasive. The plaintiffs in Harvard and UNC argue that the schools violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars recipients of federal aid from discriminating by race. The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause also prohibits states, including public universities, from discriminating by race. Grutter’s great mistake was carving out an exception for colleges to use race in admissions to achieve a diverse student body. The Court set some guardrails, including that race may only be a “plus” factor, cannot "unduly harm” non-minority applicants; and must be considered alongside “all” forms of diversity. Universities were also required to consider race-neutral alternatives and to ensure that racial preferences are “limited in time.” But the Court said—wink, wink—it would be “presumed” they are acting in “good faith.” Evidence uncovered from Harvard and UNC shows they aren’t. Like most colleges, Harvard uses “holistic” admissions reviews that include nonacademic and subjective criteria. Applicants are assigned academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal and overall ratings. But the personal ratings seem to reflect racial bias, and they are weighted heavily in the overall scores. Applicants with similar academic qualifications thus have hugely disparate admission rates. The plaintiffs show that only 22.2% of Asian-Americans who rate in the top 10% academically received a high personal score compared to 34.2% of Hispanics and 47% of blacks. Do these differences owe to conscious prejudice or what the left calls “implicit” bias? Asian-Americans in the top 10% academically have a 12.7% chance of getting into Harvard compared to 15.3% for whites, 31.3% for Hispanics, and 56.1% for blacks. Harvard can’t explain the large disparities if race is merely one factor among many, or why admissions officials apparently believe Asian-Americans have personal attributes that make them less worthy. UNC’s admissions also demonstrate racial disparities that suggest bias. According to one statistical analysis, an out-of-state Asian-American in the fourth highest academic decile has only a 6.5% chance of admissions compared to 57.7% for a black. Another analysis finds that a white, out-of-state male with 10% odds of admission would have a 98% chance if he were black. Online chats among admissions officers also show that UNC held non-Asian minorities to lower admissions standards—what George W. Bush once called the soft bigotry of low expectations. “If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship],” one officer wrote. Another: “Stellar academics for a Native Amer/African Amer kid.” Both colleges claim they don’t put undue emphasis on race. Yet a district court judge found that race was “determinative” for at least 45% of Harvard’s admitted black and Hispanic applicants. If Harvard eliminated racial preferences, the black share of its undergrad class would fall to 6% from 14% and to 9% from 14% for Hispanics. Race is a triple-plus factor. Colleges could instead adopt race-neutral policies that still benefit minorities as public universities in nine states have done. For instance, Harvard could reduce alumni legacy preferences that primarily benefit affluent whites and give more weight to economic background. California schools have managed this without great rancor since voters there barred government discrimination by race in a referendum in 1996 and again in 2020. *** The Harvard and UNC cases prove that Grutter was wrongly decided and unworkable. There are no substantive reliance interests that would argue against overturning it. Colleges could abandon racial preferences tomorrow without overhauling their admissions process. Many no doubt would devise race-neutral ways to admit minority applicants. Grutter’s misplaced hope was that economic mobility would render racial preferences obsolete. Instead, colleges have helped to cover up the failures of K-12 public education, which disproportionately harms black and Hispanic children. Rather than leading to more racial comity, Grutter has bred division and resentment. This may explain why a majority of Americans in most polls say they want race-neutral government policies and admission standards. By ruling that racial preferences in admissions are illegal, the High Court can send a powerful message that discriminating by race is contrary to American principles and destructive to social harmony. Appeared in the October 28, 2022, print edition as 'The Court and Racial Preferences'.
The courts can strike down affirmative action and it won't make much difference. Colleges can then simply switch to changing it to admitting people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Different standard that will have the exact same net result.
in-house counsel says that if and when this happens, her job for the next five years is going to be very, very different
I know several Universities including Harvard have changed standards for admission regarding economic disadvantage. If I recall Stanford does give some preference for people from families that earn less than $140K. My own view is that is far more practical than racial based preferences. While racism does still exist there are enough well off people of all races that I don't think it makes sense to rely upon that to address disparities.
this potentially affects everything from athletics to housing. Plus lawsuits, which are already common. For example not too long ago black students brought a claim against the university because the percentage of blacks from well-off immigrant backgrounds was higher than blacks with backgrounds going back several generations in the U.S. It's already a minefield and it's only going to get worse.
