3 ms·
> Do they? Honest question. Is there a law that says fees must be in some sense justified? Read the opinion, it isn’t very long. This facet in particular is di
by TimorousBestie 4mo ago
> Do they? Honest question. Is there a law that says fees must be in some sense justified?
Read the opinion, it isn’t very long. This facet in particular is discussed in detail there.
> They gave a definition of fee vs tax that is based on a meaningful distinction and not what it happens to be called.
GP sounds likes he’s trying out for the inevitable appeal, the tax/fee distinctions argued in the case came from different case law.
- dpark 4mo agoFrom what I can tell with a quick reading, it is not. The opinion states that the fee is a tax and not a penalty and based on that ruling then further rules that the tax oversteps Congress’s delegated authority. The whole penalty thing seems weird because obviously it’s not a penalty, so I don’t know if the president’s lawyers argued a dumb point and lost or if I’m missing some legal nuance here. Regardless, the opinion is based on the ruling that the fee amounts to a tax, not that fees must be justified.
- TimorousBestie 4mo agoPage 18 and ff. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.106.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293... > I don’t know if the president’s lawyers argued a dumb point and lost They argued several dumb points, you’ll have to narrow it down.
- dpark 4mo agoI don’t understand what you’re getting at. Page 18 is the tax vs penalty discussion I referred to. > They argued several dumb points, you’ll have to narrow it down. Arguing that the fee is a “penalty” in this case seems pointlessly dumb. Seems like they should have argued the fee a “fee”.