It’s a good op ed and one with which any supporter of enlightened democracy should agree. The Supreme Court are playing fast and loose with public trust at a time when partisanship has crippled the other branches of government and polarization is dividing the country.

How can anyone respect a court that explicitly has no ethical standard?

America was founded on the freedom to believe in crazy things, so to a great extent I agree with you. But all rights—including speech, privacy, and religion—have limits, and these limits need to delineate the space between the competing rights of others.

If gay people have the right to marry, then a county clerk cannot have the right to deny marriage certificates to gay couples.

If people of legally protected classes have a right to conduct business without fear of discrimination, then businesses cannot have the right to refuse service to those people, for religion or any other reason.

Georgia, the country, kindly request y’all mind your Ps and Qs.

The link is up there.

Basically the plaintiffs are hoping the Supreme Court enacts a narrow definition of the word “income” for taxability purposes relating to Trump’s repatriation tax, and they and their lawyers are explicitly inviting the Supreme Court to do so in a way that would also stymie a hypothetical wealth tax.

Per the article, “The Justice Department had urged the justices to reject the case, noting there was no split on the issue in the lower courts and arguing that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly applied the relevant precedents. On the wealth-tax question, the government also pointedly noted that the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to issue advisory opinions about hypothetical legislation that has not been enacted into law by Congress.”