Supreme Court decides to hear Schulz case

[ASITStands]

Judging from his opinion in the recent gun case, Justice Scalia leans more to a literal interpretation of Constitutional language, so any opinion offered by him could very well close the door on tax protesting, more-or-less forever, and that would be a good thing.

Unless anyone here believes there's some loophole not addressed by either the Constitution or previous Supreme Court decisions, and I doubt that, little is at risk except the protesting.

Maybe the Court will permanently close the ratification argument? Maybe it will permanently close the direct/indirect question and state explicitly, "The income tax is legitimate?"

Schulz seems to be believe the government must answer his questions about the income tax before it has a right to the withholding or collecting of taxes at the source or by return. And, on that basis, he seems to believe the People have a right to petition for redress.

Justice Scalia may think it's time to offer a definitive opinion on the validity of the internal revenue code, as it currently stands, and the authority of the United States to collect taxes. He may also think it's time to offer a definitive opinion on using the Courts for redress.

I can't imagine him writing an opinion that reflects any other outcome.

[The Observer]

Maybe the Court will permanently close the ratification argument? Maybe it will permanently close the direct/indirect question and state explicitly, "The income tax is legitimate?"

That wouldn't satisfy Schulz. He would only scream louder about the fact that the court ignored the issue of his perceived right to receive an answer in response to his petition.

[ASITStands]

Actually, after thinking about it some more, I agree with 'cynicalflyer:'

Maybe because Scalia suspects if he rejects, Schulz will try to petition the full Court anyway and they might as well get right to rejecting it as a full Court.

This is simply the easiest way to prevent Schulz from asking all nine justices.

[Dr. Caligari]

It's pretty standard for any second request to be referred to the full court. No justice is going to overrule one of his or her colleagues on his own.

And nothing the Court does here is going to address tax protestor arguments. First, if I'm not mistaken, this relates to Schulz's lawsuit against the bank bailout, not one of his tax cases. And it's only a request for a stay, so all they will say is "stay denied." They won't rule on the merits.

[ASITStands]

Dr. Caligari:

You're right! It deals only with the bank bailout case. Silly me.

[fortinbras]

[quote="Demosthenes"]"nationally known constitutional rights scholar"???

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/1 ... 456249.txt
---
It took some effort but I figure out that the Post-Star, the newspaper being quoted, is published in Glen Falls, NY. It has a staff of about 50 people and boasts of being among the first newspapers to use page numbers (a distinction that probably predates the birth of the grandparents of any of the current staff).

[cynicalflyer]

The order list from the 11/14/08 conference has been issued and no word on Robert L. Schulz, v. United States Federal Reserve System, et al.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 1408zr.pdf

[LPC]

The order list from the 11/14/08 conference has been issued and no word on Robert L. Schulz, v. United States Federal Reserve System, et al.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 1408zr.pdf

For Schulz, I think that no news is bad news.