Comments on: Analysis: Bonds and taxes, a choice of two theories http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Don Miller http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-12729 Don Miller Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:05:54 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/#comment-12729 It is possible that Davis might win and lose at the same time. It is possible that SCOTUS strikes down Kentucky's law giving Davis a win. It would then be likely that Kentucky would replace it with a law that would tax the interest on all municipal bonds no matter what state issues them. In the long run, this is exactly the result Davis wouldn't want, but is the likely result if SCOTUS takes his side. It is possible that Davis might win and lose at the same time.

It is possible that SCOTUS strikes down Kentucky’s law giving Davis a win.

It would then be likely that Kentucky would replace it with a law that would tax the interest on all municipal bonds no matter what state issues them. In the long run, this is exactly the result Davis wouldn’t want, but is the likely result if SCOTUS takes his side.

]]> By: Chee Foong Chew http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-12725 Chee Foong Chew Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:05:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/#comment-12725 In my opinion, Justice Thomas's vote is enough. From the argument, it seems that Kentucky would have Justice Breyer,Souter,Ginsburg, and Chief Justice Roberts's vote. Justice Scalia was unusually quiet in the debate, only voicing in once or twice so it's hard to tell where he'll vote. In my opinion, Justice Thomas’s vote is enough. From the argument, it seems that Kentucky would have Justice Breyer,Souter,Ginsburg, and Chief Justice Roberts’s vote.

Justice Scalia was unusually quiet in the debate, only voicing in once or twice so it’s hard to tell where he’ll vote.

]]> By: Jacob Berlove http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-12724 Jacob Berlove Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:16:47 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-bonds-and-taxes-a-choice-of-two-theories/#comment-12724 Linda Greenhouse claims in her NYT column today that Kentucky can count on Justice Scalia's vote, given his opposition to the negative commerce clause. I think this is far from certain. Justice Scalia has repeatedly stated that he is willing to vote to void statues that discriminate against commerce from other states, and it seems clear that, in this area, he will not use what he considers to be an indadequate basis to distinguish one case from another as an excuse to vote in favor of the constitutionally preferred outcome. Case in point: The interstate wine case, in which he could have easily voted to carve out an alcohol exception to the negative commerce clause but provided the decisive fifth vote in refusing to do so. ( As an aside, I take it he wasn't too enthused with his vote- he had the opportunity to fulfill his penchant of writing cases which look at a lot of constitutional history by assigning the case to himself, but instead assigned the opinion to Justice Kennedy). If Justice Scalia feels that there isn't a good distinction between bonds and milk, he will not vote in favor of Kentucky. The state can only count on Justice Thomas as a sure vote. Linda Greenhouse claims in her NYT column today that Kentucky can count on Justice Scalia’s vote, given his opposition to the negative commerce clause. I think this is far from certain. Justice Scalia has repeatedly stated that he is willing to vote to void statues that discriminate against commerce from other states, and it seems clear that, in this area, he will not use what he considers to be an indadequate basis to distinguish one case from another as an excuse to vote in favor of the constitutionally preferred outcome. Case in point: The interstate wine case, in which he could have easily voted to carve out an alcohol exception to the negative commerce clause but provided the decisive fifth vote in refusing to do so. ( As an aside, I take it he wasn’t too enthused with his vote- he had the opportunity to fulfill his penchant of writing cases which look at a lot of constitutional history by assigning the case to himself, but instead assigned the opinion to Justice Kennedy). If Justice Scalia feels that there isn’t a good distinction between bonds and milk, he will not vote in favor of Kentucky. The state can only count on Justice Thomas as a sure vote.

]]>