Biden Suffers Another Defeat in the Federal Courts: Judge Slaps Down Move to Limit States’ Tax Cuts

The Biden agenda continued its string of legal defeats on Friday afternoon as a federal judge slapped down the administration’s attempt to block states from making their own tax cuts. The Biden administration’s unconstitutional policy was part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.


“U.S. District Judge Douglas Cole issued the permanent injunction requested by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican who argued the administration was trying to impose a ‘tax mandate’ on states,’ the Washington Times reported.

“The Biden administration reached too far, seized too much and got its hand slapped,” Yost said. “This is a monumental win for the preservation of the U.S. Constitution — the separation of powers is real, and it exists for a reason.”




https://trendingpolitics.com/biden-suffers-another-defeat-in-the-federal-courts-judge-slaps-down-move-to-limit-states-tax-cuts-as-unconstitutional-knab/



This is great news! I always thought it to be a bridge too far for the regime to dictate tax policies to a state. Congress feared that red states would cut tax rates that blue states couldn’t or wouldn’t match if they could and they were right! Thanks to Becker News for their news report on this issue.

 

I’m glad the courts set the regime in their place and is no longer going to allow the regime to prevent states from cutting their own internal tax rates.

 

This is an important win for the US, as presently constructed. We are a blend of Federal and State governments, each designed to coexist but not necessarily to override the other. I will state for the record: With our growing population of citizens, I do believe a full federalization is necessary(Something akin to the present day UK state.). but I also believe I want this to be a point of concurring agreement, rather than fiat. Because fiat can at best be protected by the SCOTUS(which even if it is, IMO only gives rise to tensions.). and at worst, just be negated by the next President.

So if we concur to a more federal union, with the federal government financing the States(and in turn, making state taxes obsolete) then that's great but until then States get discretion with their own taxes.

 

The states are the laboratories of democracy. The country would be unbearable if we were totally federal with no states.

 

Yeah, not sure how they thought that this would actually be a thing that was upheld by the courts. The commerce clause only gives the federal government the ability to regulate interstate commerce. IE: Trade between the states. It does not allow the federal government to dictate what internal trade is or the taxes that result from such.

 

My political position, I admit is a bizarre one. I'm a Fascist-technocrat, who nevertheless has respect for the system as it presently is. As a syndicalist, I believe that political upheavals with little to no approval, even if that 'state' is established it won't last for long. To me, it would be unbearable if the present political leadership were at charge of a centralized nation.(And by leadership, I don't mean party but I do mean the Washington beltway wit large.)

But I do believe that a competent, centralized party for a centralized government could bring about those social and economic reforms.

 

I don’t think they seriously thought about it in their rush to cram through as much as possible into that bill. If they’d thought it through, I can’t imagine them thinking that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have ultimately came down as this court did.

 

This Biden WH appears to be wall to wall morons. These clowns thought they had the authority to stop States from cutting taxes? Who knew that they were this dumb? Who is running the circus over there?

​

​

Yes. And that given the choice, that folks would choose Red State Freedom and Liberty over Blue State Tyranny and Mismanagement, and they were right! Weird that the Biden legal team was dumb enough to even try to litigate this nonsense. I wonder what that team's hourly billing charges are.

​

If they really want to tax something, they should tax Yale.

Forbes: Should We Tax Rather Than Subsidize Yale?

Yup! Tax The hell out Of Them!

 

I can’t wait to see red states cut taxes as the blue ones finally reopen and see we the people vote with our feet and energize the low tax economies.

 

A trump appointee. Surprise, surprise.

 

This case is about whether Congress can tell states how they are going to use money that Congress is giving them. The Supreme Court has answered that question in the affirmative time and time again. This judge was appointed by the orange lardtard. His opinion has zero credibility. We'll just have to let the Sixth Circuit sort this out.

States can tax however the **** they want. But if they take money from Congress, they have to accept the conditions that come with that money. If they don't want to comply with those conditions, then they can reject the money.

 

yep, Republicans made my state raise the drinking age to get federal funds for roads

then they elected Bush jr, amazing....... guess they decided drunk driving was not so bad after all

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/george-w-bush-dui-arrest-record

federal money often comes with strings

 

You really think the Supremes would rule differently?

 

The court ruling is that those strings extended too far.

 

Why in Gods name do you think that would be a good thing?

 

Okay but what happens when that competent party loses to a group of authoritarians?

Now you’ve given them complete control over funding.

 

Any government that genuinely cares for the prosperity and happiness of its people is going to be a good government regardless of the methods employed to govern. But those types of people (normal people) simply don't have the necessary drive to obtain power relative to those who crave to control others and wield power for its own sake. The latter will always end up with the power because they have the strongest will to obtain it. People who just want to coexist and help their neighbors will ultimately settle for just doing that. This is the fundamental principle that America was built upon. All our checks and balances and jurisdictions and compartmentalizations were designed with the assumption that the people in the highest offices would all ultimately be out for themselves, but at least they would be pitted against eachother and there would be no singular authority for any of them to obtain. Much of that has been eroded now, and it has been eroded by increasing centralization of authority, at least in practice if not in official policy. Show me a good king that will live forever and I'll swear my allegiance to that empire. But such does not nor shall ever exist, and thus its best to keep as much of the authority as localized and spread apart as possible, so as to minimize the power any individual can wield over another, because eventually, innevitably, someone will.

 

Seems the courts are doing their jobs.

Sort of funny, the people that were happy with the courts stopping Trump are now not happy and all those that whined about activist judges during the Trump years are now singing a different tune