Soviet-Style Tax Court?

7/28/2010 Introduced in House
7/30/2010 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 402 – 11 (Roll no. 502).
12/17/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
12/22/2010 Resolving differences — House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection.
12/22/2010 Cleared for White House.
12/29/2010 Presented to President.
1/4/2011 Signed by President.
1/4/2011 Became Public Law No: 111-366 [Text, PDF]

Passed quickly in the Pelosi House. Stalled in the Senate until the Lame Duck session. Passed in the senate 8 days before Christmas, with an amendment. No conference committee. Pushed through the house 3 days before Christmas. Why another week between “Cleared for White House” and “Presented to President”? (Presented 2 days before New Year’s Eve). Signed by Obama after 111th Congress already over… 1/4/2001.

This was promoted as an accomplishment by the White House as follows:

Signed Legislation

Signed on January 04, 2011
Authority of Tax Court to Appoint Employees

But wait! That’s not the description of the bill! The bill was described as:

Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010

Bait and switch, eh?

So now, the ability has been given to the Obama regime to appoint Tax Court empolyees and not have to have them be confirmed by the Senate?

Always keep this in mind:

The threat of prosecution for tax fraud is the Kremlin’s weapon of choice against anyone who dares to challenge its hegemony.

Interesting, isn’t it?

I’m not a lawyer, but if I understand this correctly, this bill allows the Obama regime to appoint whoever they want to the Tax Court, and the Senate no longer has the power of confirmation to stop him.

Welcome to Russia.


Footnote:  Remember this promise?

Transparency — President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history

(That page permantly archived here).

Once again, pResident Obama breaks that promise.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Soviet-Style Tax Court?

  1. Will Bill H says:

    I call my Representative and asked why he voted yes on this bill, explaining my opposition.

    He said the appointments allowed by this bill were CLERKS only, who held no authority to do anything but do research for the Judges…such as a law clerk.

    He further said the bill did NOT give Obama or his administration to do anything other than hire low level employees.

    I don’t, as a rule, trust politicians; however, I do make an exception for this guy – he is a good guy and I usually agree 100% with his voting record.

  2. Will Bill H,

    Thank you for your comment. I don’t, as a rule, trust politicians either. I’d be interested to hear him explain why he thinks a bill titled “Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010” was promoted by the Obama administration’s web site as “Authority of Tax Court to Appoint Employees”. What happened to Jobs being the focus? They are more interested in every new authority that the Legislative branch cedes to the Executive branch.

    And while these may be clerks, not judges, that still means a lot. Almost every judge was once a clerk. If the leftists control the entry-level positions today, they have some control over who will one day be judges. In many areas of society, leftists control the promotion process, and if you don’t bow down and worship at the leftist altar, you don’t get promoted/tenure/grants/clerkships/jobs/etc.

    And clerks can absolutely affect cases, by sabotaging how cases are handled. Leo Donofrio witnessed this personally in the case he brought in NJ and took to the Supreme Court.

  3. A commenter named Sharon (on another blog where I participate) said:

    Your commenter mentions that in his understanding the bill “just covers clerks” and you accurately explain why that should not make us trust this authority distortion….reminded me that Stalin (? right ?) said you don’t have to have the biggest army to be a tyrant; you just need ten thousand bureaucrats.

    As I understand it, zippy has ordered up 16,000 new IRS agents.

    I replied:

    Thousands more IRS agents is part of Obamacare… to ensure that you are properly fined (and/or JAILED, apparently, a la Russia) if you don’t follow their mandate.

  4. Aaron says:

    With a new victory in Florida, we are headed all the closer to finally defeating the Obamacare monster once and for all. Unlike the initial challenges in Federal disctict courts–where known activist judges dismissed the cases out of hand–the cases where the challenges were heard and given a fair trial to argue, they won.

    Don’t let the government beggars fool you with their fallacious arguments. Their car insurance argument is a fallacy because no one is required by law to own a car or drive it on public roads, and those who do own a car and drive on public roads have the option of self-insuring by keeping proof of financial ability to cover liability.

    Their claim that the law will be invariably gutted by eliminating the individual mandate is an Appeal to Consequences fallacy that does nothing to address the (un)constitutionality of the mandate. Whether it kills the law by making it unenforceable or not doesn’t matter, it is still unconstitutional.

    Their claim that everyone participates in the healthcare market as justification for the mandate is also fallacy. This was even mocked by the judge in Florida, who replied that everyone also participates in the food market, but that does not mean the federal government can mandate that people purchase wheat-bread.

  5. Republicans should have held up everything in the Lame Duck portion of the 111th Congress until Obama made the Bush Tax Cuts PERMANENT. Instead, they allowed a temporary extension, gave Obama almost everything else that he wanted during the Lame Duck, and now Obama is already trying to reneg on his part of the deal by undoing the Bush Tax Cuts and raising some of the very taxes that had been cut in the Bush Tax Cuts.

  6. Will Bill H says:

    Why was the bill named one thing and actually did something else?
    Who the hell knows! Happens all the time. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just not buying the concept that simply because of that the bill is bad.

    I will give you that I wouldn’t have supported the bill – at all – period. However, as explained by the staffer that I contacted in my Reps office, he has to pick his battles. While this was not a necessary bill, there are way more pressing and substantial issues out there to fight against.

    And I’m sorry, you cannot be serious that these clerks will end up staying in these entry level jobs until they are finally promoted to a judgeship. Yes, clerks can alter cases and have an incredible amount of control, but that’s the democratic system that we have to work within. You think it is only one sided? You think only leftist appoint judges and clerks? Again, I’m not advocating that this bill was good by any means; however, you act and speak as though the right is any different from the left.

    This is exactly the type of thinking that is tearing this country apart. There is no difference in the politicians in office today. They are ALL against We The People – both right and left. I don’t trust any of them. I don’t even trust the Rep I called, but he is the best thing I have at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s