May 15 unanimous SCOTUS decision OFFICIALLY EMASCULATES TAXPAYERS

[Nothing Without Hope]

Sure has been a lot of silence about this:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog
David Sirota, 5.15.06

Supreme Court officially emasculates taxpayers

In a unanimous decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a lower court ruling that would have invalidated massive taxpayer giveaways to Corporate America. The Supreme Court has long been the victim of a hostile takeover by Big Money interests. It is a court now headed by a corporate lawyer that has repeatedly gone out of its way to protect Corporate America's ability to bleed the middle class dry. Today's ruling, though, is particularly egregious. Not only did the court strike down an important ruling, but it essentially emasculated taxpayers' ability to bring any such lawsuits against their own government in the future.

The details are as shocking as they are disgusting. As the Associated Press reports (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HKA2E00.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_up&chan=db), "two years ago, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Ohio's tax credit on new equipment, saying the practice hinders interstate commerce because the incentives are available only to businesses that invest in Ohio." In other words, plaintiffs correctly noted the credits are creating a race to the bottom that violate interstate commerce laws by forcing states and cities to compete with each other to give away more and more taxpayer cash to Big Business. In the Ohio case, the tax credit was used to give DaimlerChrysler roughly $300 million in taxpayer cash - cash that Toledo's county auditor says was siphoned away from local schools (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-02-28-tax-break-usat_x.htm), forcing the city to close up to nine schools or fire 380 school workers.

In striking down the lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court not only ruled against Ohio taxpayers, but against all taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts, formerly a corporate lawyer, said in the official opinion that "State taxpayers have no standing ... to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers." In other words, not only will the Ohio law remain, but state taxpayers throughout the country now have no legal right to challenge the decisions of their bought-and-paid-for elected officials who are selling off our government to the highest bidder.

To get a sense of just how far reaching an affront to taxpayers' rights this ruling is, consider that USA Today earlier reported that taxpayers in other states were moving forward with similar cases (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-02-28-tax-break-usat_x.htm). As just one example, in North Carolina, taxpayers have challenged the state's $242 million giveaway to Dell Computer. Now, the Supreme Court has essentially said they aren't even allowed to bring such a case. Want to try to stop Wal-Mart from abusing interstate commerce laws by extorting a billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies (http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf)? Forget even having your case heard in court - your Supreme Court says you have to simply sit back and accept higher taxes to fund this kind of largesse.

(more)

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. kick for visibility n/t

[Sydnie]

2. This disgusts me

Not one dissenting voice?

[Kagemusha]

3. Tough.

Courts aren't supposed to overrule policy decisions made by elected officials that are otherwise within the law. Race to the bottom or not, that's a decision that's supposed to be made by elected leaders. If they're corrupt, work on replacing them. Simply erradicating democracy is not the solution.

[trotsky]

22. An aggravating and disappointing decision to be sure...

but you are 100% correct. The courts are not the place to change these practices.

[Blackhatjack]

4. An Incredibly Bad Decision, unless you favor Court Access only for rich

If you happen to be just a taxpayer, all you can do is go vote( that may or may not be counted) to vote out your corrupt representative.

We are moving toward Court access only for the wealthy, like it used to be when Kings ruled over their kingdoms.

[acmejack]

5. "Taxpayers have no standing..."

There you go in a nutshell, folks, Chief Justice Roberts just expressed an opinion that caused quite a ruckus 230 years ago.

[Kagemusha]

9. ...What the *hell* are you talking about?

230 years ago Americans didn't have a chance to vote for the people deciding taxation policies at all. The King of England was the Decider and his governors were the implementers. Unlike in England itself, Americans didn't have any say at all through elected representatives.

You may not like them, but the people making state tax policy decisions are Americans elected by other Americans. That is one hell of a big difference.

Churchill's quote about democracy being a terrible system until weighed against all the alternatives is good to remember at times like this.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Hmmm...interesting comment nonetheless when one considers...

the East India Company had more at stake in the colonies than did Britain itself.

[acmejack]

32. I would have thought you were astute enough to figure It out on your own

Before that comment, that is. Thank you for explaining these things to me, I always appreciate having someone like yourself get me up to speed!

[rucky]

40. I guess you can apply that to any criticism of Government

and that's why we still have the 29% backwash.

[mnhtnbb]

6. Fascism officially endorsed by Supreme Court

This is what it's about, folks...the government exists for the benefit of corporations.

[Time for change]

7. This is hard to believe

How can taxpayers not have standing in a case that involves the use of their money? :shrug:

Next thing you know they'll come up with a ruling that prevents our votes from being counted :mad:

[NoQuarter]

10. Been there -

Done that.

[5X]

8. K & R cause everyone needs to know just what the corporate run...

republican party is up to.

[annabanana]

11. this is stunning...

Citizens have no standing in America anymore. It is past time for the leeches and bloodsuckers to find some other country to bleed dry.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. I wish we could legally put these Repubs into federal housing and

make them start all over again. No calls to known people allowed. And we know how to make sure they're not doing it.

[babylonsister]

13. Chief Justice Roberts is earning his keep, I see. nt

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. ***DISCUSSION OF CASE & DECISION at FindLaw Writ site:***

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/cases/clcc.html?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-1704

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP. et al. v. CUNO et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

No. 04-1704.?Argued March 1, 2006--Decided May 15, 2006*

The city of Toledo and State of Ohio sought to encourage DaimlerChrysler Corp. to expand its Toledo operations by offering it local property tax exemptions and a state franchise tax credit. A group of plaintiffs including Toledo residents who pay state and local taxes sued in state court, alleging that the tax breaks violated the Commerce Clause. The taxpayer plaintiffs claimed injury because the tax breaks depleted the state and local treasuries to which they contributed. Defendants removed the action to District Court. Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court because, inter alia, they doubted whether they satisfied either the constitutional or prudential limitations on standing in federal court. The District Court declined to remand the case, concluding that plaintiffs had standing under the "municipal taxpayer standing" rule articulated in Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447. On the merits, the court found that neither tax benefit violated the Commerce Clause. Without addressing standing, the Sixth Circuit agreed as to the municipal tax exemption, but held that the state franchise tax credit violated the Commerce Clause. Defendants sought certiorari to review the invalidation of the franchise tax credit, and plaintiffs sought certiorari to review the upholding of the property tax exemption. This Court granted review to consider whether the franchise tax credit violates the Commerce Clause, and directed the parties to address the issue of standing.

Held: Plaintiffs have not established their standing to challenge the state franchise tax credit. Because they have no standing to challenge that credit, the lower courts erred by considering their claims on the merits. Pp. 4-18.

1. State taxpayers have no standing under Article III to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Pp. 4-13.

(a) Before this Court can address the merits of plaintiffs' challenge, it has an obligation to assure itself that the merits question is presented in a proper Article III "case" or "controversy." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560. The case-or-controversy limitation is crucial in maintaining the " 'tripartite allocation of power' " set forth in the Constitution. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 474. "Article III standing ... enforces the ... case-or-controversy requirement." Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 11. The requisite elements of standing are familiar: "A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751. Plaintiffs, as the parties now asserting federal jurisdiction, must carry the burden of establishing their standing. Pp. 4-6.

(snip - continued at link)

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. Note the deafening silence about this momentous SCOTUS decision

Have you heard about it? I didn't see it at Huffington Post, for example. As for the corporate media, well...

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. kick - amazing how this has been ignored so far in the press, even the

Progressive press, it seems.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. kick for visibility n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. hoping for more comments - meanwhile, kick for visibility n/t

[Joanne98]

20. Corporations have become mankinds biggest enemy.

[ithacan]

21. it does sound really bad, but on the other hand

why was it unanimous?

That leads me to think there's something else going on here that we aren't aware of.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. Yes - I have wondered also, yet the lower court ruled the opposite way.

What this does underline absolutely is that once corrupt officials are elected, they can loot millions until they are removed from office. Without oversight by ANYONE, including the press, and cowed protest controlled by spying, bribery and blackmail, they scale rises astromically. After all, there truly is no limit to their greed.

It also points out the danger of supporting candidates with strong corporate obligations - and not just the GOPs. I'm thinking, for example, of Hillary Clinton's big fundraiser - hosted by Rupert Murdoch.

Once elected, we are all too much at the mercy of our "representatives," who can then safely show their true priorities and glut at the trough until the next election, thanks to this court decision.

[Ysolde]

24. This is wrong, but I do wonder

why the decision was unanimous? I'm no lawyer and I can't stand the practice of giving away tax dollars to corporations for "jobs", but maybe a couple of the other posters have the correct interpretaton of this. That being that we the taxpayers and voters have a responsibility to hold our "representatives" accountable for these kind of giveaways.

[In Truth We Trust]

25. Get radical America! Get Radical NOW!!! march on your state capital

and demand impeachment the n demand paper nballots and Hand counts then you get your country back.

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. kick for visibility. n/t

[nolabels]

27. So does anybody out there think the U.S. government runs..........

the U.S. government? To me most of the U.S Government looks like place holders for multinational corporations. I am glad see more people are starting to notice what is up :patriot:

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. Yes, the big corporate conglomerates ARE the US government

It's the shadow government that's really been in power for some time now - now they are confident enough in their position that they are showing their hands. After all, they own the media and telecommunications too.

[Sgent]

29. This doesn't seem to be a major issue (or a change in current status)

It merely says that an individual tax payer doesn't have standing to challenge a legislative action unless it specifically infringes on a constitutional issue.

The proper place for expressing disagreement with an appropriations decision is in the election booth -- where citizens as a whole have the authority to direct how appropriations are made. Giving an individual citizen veto power over a legislative appropriations would endlessly tie up the courts, while concurrently emasculating representative government.

There are some circumstances where individuals have standing -- and this ruling doesn't change those. In cases where appropriations violate the constitution, an individual taxpayer does have standing -- but not just because they merely disagree with the policy.

[sofa king]

30. I wonder if there is a silver lining to this.

My scanty knowledge of the law erodes by the day as I use it less and less (and as it becomes less and less relevant in this new Gilded Age).

As I recall, corporations are under certain parts of the law are considered "people."

Does that mean that this decision also prevents corporations from questioning legislative decisions in court?

If that's the case, the tables may one day be turned, should we ever get our country back.

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. Not from what I can tell. Corporations are considered "people"...

in terms of privileges...but rarely in terms of responsibilities.

[sofa king]

33. I should have known.

[CrispyQ]

37. "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann

explains how corporations obtained personhood rights & how they have unequal uses for the Bill of Rights, regulation, protection from risk, taxes, responsibility, privacy, citizenship & access to the commons, wealth, trade, media & influence. He covers each of the above & it was some of the hardest reading I've ever done as my blood pressure rocketed with every chapter.

It should be required reading for all Americans.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549551/sr=8-1/qid=1147789307/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4550177-3714357?%5Fencoding=UTF8


A proposed amendment to revoke corporate personhood: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

An Amendment to Revoke Corporate Constitutional Privileges
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

[mmonk]

34. It means much more than just the emasculation of taxpayers,

it means corporations will shape our nation's laws for a generation, and it will effect the rights of Americans across the board. Whenever a "civil" right comes in conflict with what corporations want, the civil rights of Americans will take a backseat no matter what standing law or constitutional right preceeded the rulings we are in for. The democratic party "strategy" of ceding the judiciary and trying a states' rights experimental approach will fail due to rightwing interpretation of the commerce clause. That's why the compromise of the gang of 14 is really a capitulation.

[lostnfound]

35. Wonder if the principle of 'odious debt' could be applied?

Assuming that the issue of non-standing can ever be overcome.

[knitter4democracy]

36. That's what I thought when I heard it yesterday.

Why can't the taxpayers sue over this? It doesn't make sense to me--who's ultimately in charge, then?

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. Who's in charge? The military-industrial complex, through their

revolving-door front men throughout the government.

[rucky]

39. that's okay, we'll just send our kids to Chrysler Elementary

where they can learn to be good auto workers if they're willing to relocate to Mexico for $2/hr.

[Samurai_Writer]

41. Emasculate? So women taxpayers don't count?

Sorry, but I have nothing to 'emasculate' (which means, to castrate).

Yes, this ruling is horrendous, but can't the reporter use a word that emcompasses ALL taxpayers and not only 1/2 of them?

[AngryAmish]

42. This is old law

Forgive me but my constitutional law is rusty but here goes...

No one has standing to challenge a law (in this case a spending/tax relief law) just because they are taxpayers. It comes from the "case or controversy" in Article II - "Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

this is a good thing. Only those actually hurt (or potential to be hurt) can complain about a law.

This is a political case and should be resolved at the ballot box no matter how much this case hurts.

[Maven]

43. Sorry guys, I know it hurts but this was the right decision

The Court didn't misconstrue the "standing to sue" doctrine here. That doesn't mean that the statute in question could never be subject to judicial review. It just means that the proper party to bring such a suit would be a party that was directly injured by the statute--say, an out-of-state business. Even if they had examined the law itself, the court wouldn't be able to strike it down unless Ohio could show no legitimate state interest that justified putting a burden on interstate commerce, if such a burden were determined to exist.

But there's another, more important reason this is a good thing for everyone, including us: If taxpayers could sue every time their government used its taxation power in a way they didn't like, think about how many people on the right would try to destroy social programs based on various legal theories. That's not to mention the ridiculous burden it would put on the judicial system (case dockets), or the serious separation-of-powers issues that would arise.

There's a good reason this decision was unanimous. Everyone take a deep breath.

[OG Yankee Patriot]

44. Concur. This Isn't "Stop Counting the Votes"

Mr. Korman is correct.
We can't just look at Roberts' chilling "taxpayers have no standing" quote in isolation, his decision has to be framed against the backdrop of the moving parties. In this case, plaintiff did not have legal standing.
Taxpayers have remedies outside of the courtroom, the most accessible being the ballot box.
SCOTUS is, and should, be sending a clear and loud message to America - a court of law is not the proper forum for resolving every dispute among men.

[SlipperySlope]

45. You would prefer the alternative?

This case seems trivial to me, maybe I'm not appreciating some subtlety.

Different states have different taxes. That's an established fact.

Two consequences of this: Within a given state, some people will pay less taxes than others. And when you look across all the states, some states will have lower taxes than others.

So, if SCOTUS had ruled differently, you would let any taxpayer sue the state because some other taxpayer pays less taxes?
On the one hand, I love that idea, since I think ALL TAXATION should be illegal. But on the other hand, it would be sheer chaos.

Simple example. A state passes a tax credit to people who drive electric cars. Then I choose to drive a Hummer. Should I be able to sue the state because my electric-car driving neighbor pays less tax than me?

[AzDar]

46. Aw, Jeez......unanimous??? n/t

[autorank]

47. K&R. But Hope, they bought and paid for the court. It's only reich. n/t