Supremes Hear Yet Another Appeal of a Nutroot 9th Circuit Case

Supremes Hear Yet Another Appeal of a Nutroot 9th Circuit Case

Share this

Adam Schaeffer of the Cato Institute writes in All of Your Money Belongs to the State that the 9th circuit thinks just that:

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. It’s been getting more press than I’d expected, in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today. That’s great news, because the case is far more important than just saving a program that improves education and expands educational freedom.

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. It is a disturbing, dangerous decision.

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. It asserts as well that when taxpayers and parents privately choose to support religious educational organizations, they are in violation of the First Amendment. This reasoning blatantly ignores the logic and plain meaning of the 2002 Zelman decision upholding school vouchers, among others.

Here is a prediction; the court will have their absurd ruling on an Arizona education tax credit program posted on the wall of judicial shame like so many others issued from their Circuit.

But I want more from the Court. 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.

Of course, Mr. Schaeffer is right: The money you earn belongs to you, not the state. And it remains your property right up until the very moment you spend it, whether that spending be for rent, food, a yacht or taxes.

But make no mistake about it, the 9th circuit’s reasoning fits right in with the world view of radical progressives who loathe the very concept of private property and believe that to the extent you own such property it is only at the pleasure of the state.

It is judicial attitudes like these that lead to despicable decisions like the one the Supreme Court handed down in Kelo v. New City of London.

Thank God Justice Souter is no longer on the bench to chime in on this case.

About Peter Pappas

Peter is a tax attorney and certified public acccountant with over 20 years experience helping taxpayers resolve their IRS and state tax problems.

He has represented thousands of taxpayers who have been experiencing difficulty dealing with the Internal Revenue Service or State tax officials.

He is a member of the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants, the Florida Bar Association and The Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants and is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court, the United States Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts - Middle District of Florida