Skip to main content

View Diary: Fed Court: Ministers now have to pay income tax on their "free housing" (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm certainly not 100% sure, by any means, (2+ / 0-)

    but johnny brings up a very interesting issue of the standing of the plaintiffs, as well as other divisive legal issues.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:20:54 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  on reading the opinion (quickly) it looked (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Rising, VClib

      like the judge addressed standing pretty nicely.  I'm no civil procedure guru, lord knows, but it seemed persuasive to me.

    •  The ruling spends a lot of time on it (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, johnny wurster, offgrid, Tonedevil

      The government tried to get things dismissed based on a lack of standing - and it commingled some arguments on the merits trying to get them read in as standing arguments, too.

      The judge did a really good job of going through all of the standing arguments - even the ones that weren't really standing arguments.

      And I think the ruling also does a good job of teasing out the root of the complaint, and provides a multi-pronged analysis that should stand up to some scrutiny at the appeals level.

      The one shortcut I see in this proceeding - one the judge calls out and cites references for - is that this is a summary judgement. No trial was called, because no material facts were in dispute and both sides indicated that their trial briefs contained all the arguments needed to decide the case.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:42:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site