53percenter's Blog

On Thursday, in a 5-4 ruling in South Dakota vs, Wayfair, Inc., the Supreme Court stated that states could force online shoppers to pay sales tax.

States had argued that they were losing massive amounts of money because they could not collect the taxes.

In a ringing endorsement of returning power to the states, the Court wrote, “Stare decisis can no longer support the Court’s prohibition of a valid exercise of the States’ sovereign power. If it becomes apparent that the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions prohibit the States from exercising their lawful sovereign powers, the Court should be vigilant in correcting the error.” “Stare decisis” means that the Court cannot ignore a determined standard and must uphold prior decisions when ruling on future cases.

The Court explained, “Under National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753, and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, South Dakota may not require a business that has no physical presence in the State to collect its sales tax. Consumer compliance rates are notoriously low, however, and it is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause South Dakota to lose between $48 and $58 million annually.”

The Court stated, “Because the physical presence rule of Quill is unsound and incorrect,” Quill and Bellas were overruled. The Court added, “The physical presence rule has long been criticized as giving out-of-state sellers an advantage. Each year, it becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause.”

Vis-à-vis Quill, the Court stated that it “creates rather than resolves market distortions. In effect, it is a judicially created tax shelter for businesses that limit their physical presence in a State but sell their goods and services to the State’s consumers.” It added that Quill “imposes the sort of arbitrary, formalistic distinction that the Court’s modern Commerce Clause precedents disavow in favor of ‘a sensitive, case-by-case analysis of purposes and effects,’ West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U. S. 186, 201.”

The formation of the two sides of the Court’s decision seemed a trifle odd, with Justice Ginsburg joining Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kennedy for the majority and Justice Roberts joining Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor for the minority.

A “Democratic Socialist” who berated Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen as she ate at a D.C. restaurant Tuesday night is actually an employee of the United States Department of Justice, the Washington Examiner reports.

Allison Hrabar is a “paralegal specialist” at the DOJ’s Washington D.C. offices, but isn’t worried about her job — even if she works for the very organization overseeing much of America’s immigration enforcement. She told the Examiner that it “feels really good” to confront those responsible for arresting illegal immigrants at the U.S.’s southern border.

She says her actions were all done off company time, and that her speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Among the chants Hrabar took part in, as shown in a video passed around social media on Tuesday night, is a call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also a Justice Department branch. Hrabar did not deny taking part in the chants and was unapologetic in her interview.

“If you see these people in public, you should remind them that they shouldn’t have peace,” she told the Examiner. “We aren’t the only ones who can do this. Anyone who sees Kirstjen Nielsen at dinner, anyone who sees anyone who works at DHS and ICE at dinner can confront them like this, and that’s what we hope this will inspire people to do.”

The Justice Department declined to comment on the matter, both to the Washington Examiner and to the Daily Caller, which also followed up on the story.

After their “success” with Kirstjen Nielsen, Democratic Socialists of America say they will continue to harass and intimidate members of the Trump Administration whenever they see them in public. The DSA was, of course, not satisfied with merely ending family separations and believes in open borders, so the campaign of harassment is expected to continue for some time.