There is an express lane, it's reserved for the government appealing cases, in which any and all injunctions are halted because the court has unilaterally decided to interpret "not being able to do illegal shit" as "great harm" while there is no harm in sending people to torture prisons abroad on the flimsiest of evidence.
This is a silly point. Courts aren't sitting around umming and ahhing about whether they should issue an arrest warrant to get x violent criminal off the streets, the system wastes minimal time in apprehending them and putting them in jail. At THAT point things slow to a crawl - because there's no longer the urgent incentive to act to prevent further harm.
Whereas in these cases the government is potentially harming the entire public every single day that the courts don't act.
Section 122 is only supposed to be applied to address balance of payments deficits, which are essentially zero with floating currency exchange rates (since the 70s). They're also limited to 15% and 150 days. (Judges will not look favorably on Trump trying to just restart the same tariff for another 150 days after the first expire.)
> I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations
No, Section 122 tariffs have never been used prior to Trump turning to them after the Supreme Court decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, and, the states suing the Administration argue, the explicit sole statutory purpose for which they were allowed in the 1974 law creating the power can only possible to exist under a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, which the US has not had since 1976.
Also, implicit in the government's requirements is that they require mass domestic surveillance capabilities. Imagine a large government tool that for each citizen there is an antagonist OpenClaw-like set of agents surveilling and potentially acting against every public interaction and occasionally hallucinating.
In my metro area it irks me to see the churches with large empty parking lots empty most of the week. We have a housing shortage and they seem to have no little incentive to convert their parking to more productive use.
I agree, the whole ruse that these 501s meaningfully does charitable work for our communities is laughable and their tax exemption should be revoked, at least with regard to land taxes.
There are almost no places where a housing shortage is due to a lack of land. Housing shortages have all sorts of reasons, from constructions cost, to zoning, to restrictions on what can be built, but it's virtually never a lack of land.
And parking is a productive use - they have services once a week, and parking means people can come to the service. That's the definition of productive use. Something does not need to be used 24/7 to be productive.
Church goers using parking lots like this is a use, but I doubt it's a productive charitable use that should to be subsidized by localities.
Every other contemporary development in my area that faces real economic reality is ground floor retail, commercial/residential on top, and optionally underground parking.
There are certainly productive religious charitable efforts using facilities like this: homeless shelters, community low-cost/free clinics, soup kitchens. I think these uses should be tax subsidized, but other mystical efforts should not be whether they generate a profit or not.
I think a good reform to the 501c3 system would be to make non-profits like these churches and hospitals classify their actual charitable activity and separate it from their other activity, just like individuals with a mix of personal/small business income/expenses are required to do.
Why should churches get great real estate in central locations but not housing? If people only come to church once a week, surely they can spend the extra time driving further.
The 1.5M number includes non-corporate employees (warehouse). They likely included this number to soften the message. The corporate workforce is ~300K so this is actually ~4% of their workforce.
The constitution has been absurdly broken by a cult of partisan federal judges claiming to be textual, but then inventing an absurd canon of non-laws no one can reference:
* Unitary executive theory. Congress can't create a federal reserve, except for when the supreme court likes it.
* Major questions doctrine. Congress can't create an EPA and give it open ended authority to regulate its way to clean air
* Qualified immunity. Congress can't stop ICE agents from murdering people
* Historical tradition as regard to the 2nd amendment. Congress can't ban everyone from walking around with military assault weapons.
I agree that partisan federal judges have caused this but my point is, Congress makes it worse.
Unitary is just wrong and Congress could continue to push back against it.
Major Question keeps coming up Congress does not step in after passing of EPA. Major EPA cases are like "Well, does this mean what we think it means because some comma somewhere" and Congress could step in and say "No, we really meant this."
Qualified Immunity is again something else Congress could step in on and say "Nope, we are eliminating qualified immunity or tailoring it back."
2nd Amendment is third rail I don't wish to touch.
The problem is the inflexibility of the constitution. If judges hadn't made the conscious decisions to turn the constitution into whatever they feel like, you'd be stuck in an even worse system of obsolete 18th century government.
This; the “originalists” who dress up in wigs and shock of shocks, just so happen to rule contrary to the way things have worked for the last 50 years.
reply