All of Your Money Belongs to the State per 9th Circuit

[jg]

From the article All of Your Money Belongs to the State Posted by Adam Schaeffer November 4, 2010

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in an appeal of a 9th Circuit decision, Winn v Garriott, a challenge to one of Arizona’s education tax credit programs.
...
The 9th Circuit’s reasoning arrogates to the state all property, dissolving the distinction between public and private funds as well as public and private choices.
...
This ruling is so awful that I can only pray SCOTUS rules beyond the questionable standing of the plaintiffs and comprehensively dismembers this most egregious 9th Circuit decision.

See the full article with links at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/all-of-y ... the-state/

[Pottapaug1938]

I would prefer a more objective analysis than you'll see on the Cato site.

[fortinbras]

Here's the 9th Circuit decision, but I don't see what Cato describes.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... t=20000003

[wserra]

Nor do I.

The heart of Schaeffer's ten-sentence "analysis" of the Ninth Circuit's 22-page decision is this claim: "They assert that tax cuts are the equivalent of government funds, a conclusion possible only if one assumes that all personal income belongs by default to the state rather than to the individual who earned the money". I don't see the logic of that assertion. Suppose a legislature granted a tax shelter only to those who contributed to a particular church. Should such a provision be immune to Establishment Clause attack because such an attack "assumes that all personal income belongs by default to the state"? Does the lack of a constitutional limit on tax rates mean that "all personal income belongs by default to the state"? Schaeffer's "logic" requires a "yes" answer to both rhetorical questions.

Moreover - and more importantly since it's the Supreme Court's opinion rather than mine - the Supreme Court has already decided that a legislative plan for private school aid which includes tax credits is indeed subject to Establishment Clause attack. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973). Cato may not like it, but one would expect them to acknowledge the law.

[jg]

I would prefer a more objective analysis than you'll see on the Cato site.

Argument preview: Re-thinking religion cases by Lyle Denniston Reporter Posted Monday, November 1st, 2010 at http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/argum ... ion-cases/ seems to be more factual and less opinionated.