Archive for April 25th, 2011
These are my links for April 25th from 17:30 to 17:32:
- Mitch Daniels: I would have backed Haley Barbour – In a statement sure to stoke speculation about his presidential intentions, Mitch Daniels said Monday that he would have backed Haley Barbour had the Mississippi governor not opted out of a White House bid.
“Haley Barbour is a great citizen; he’d have made a great president," Daniels, the Indiana governor, said in a statement. "I’d have been proud to try to help him had he chosen to run."
Daniels, who first became friends with Barbour when they served together as 30-somethings in the Reagan White House added: "The Barbours have been close and true friends to the Daniels family, and we will always be 100 percent supportive of any decision they believe is best for them.”
Daniels has said in the past that he would likely not run if Barbour is in the race.
Now, will Haley Barbour reciprocate?
- Motion to Vacate Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop 8 Judgment for Failure to Recuse – It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case. Rather, our submission is grounded in the fundamental principle, reiterated in the governing statute, that no judge “is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” Surely, no one would suggest that Chief Judge Walker could issue an injunction directing a state official to issue a marriage license to him. Yet on this record, it must be presumed that that is precisely what has occurred. At a bare minimum, “[r]ecusal is required” because former Chief Judge Walker’s long-term committed relationship, his failure to disclose that relationship at the outset of the case, his failure to disclose whether he has any interest in marriage should his injunction be affirmed, and his actions over the course of this lawsuit give rise to “a genuine question concerning [his] impartiality.”
We deeply regret the necessity of this motion. But as the Supreme Court emphasized earlier in this very case, “[b]y insisting that courts comply with the law, parties vindicate not only the rights they assert but also the law’s own insistence on neutrality and fidelity to principle.… If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.” The “regular procedure” here requires adherence to the principles that a judge may not sit on a case when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and certainly not when he has an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). Proponents ask only that these principles be applied faithfully and neutrally here as in any other case.
The failure to disclose will doom this case
These are my links for April 25th from 15:56 to 16:01:
These are my links for April 25th from 15:13 to 15:45:
- President 2012: Karl Rove warns candidates about late start – For a long time, it's been the cool-candidate thing to take your time coming to a 2012 decision.
Casualness may soon be a casualty, Karl Rove said today on Fox.
"There gets to be a point at which you don't have enough time to raise the money you need, and you don't have enough time to get organized as deeply as you need to be organized for these contests.
That period is probably sometime in June or July."
No later than Memorial Day.
BTW Ron Paul is announcing tomorrow in Iowa.
- Online Sales Tax a Bad Deal for California – In California there are 25,000 thriving small businesses known as “affiliate marketers” and right now the very existence of this industry is being threatened by misguided legislation; in these economic times can California afford to lose 25,000 more businesses?
The supposition of AB 153 (Skinner) and SB 234 (Hancock) is that by implementing an “affiliate nexus” tax, California will collect additional sales tax revenue. That is simply not true.
What is true is that if these bills pass, California affiliate marketers will have their incomes devastated, and the state will collect no new sales tax dollars.
Affiliate marketers are California companies that earn income from ads placed on their websites. In 2009, California affiliate marketers earned $1.6 billion and paid $124 million in state income taxes (plus business taxes, employment taxes, etc). Legislation such as AB 153 and SB 234 guarantees elimination of these fiscal contributions.
Proponents allege that because out-of-state retailers place ads on California-owned websites they should collect sales tax. But placing an ad on a website does not constitute a “nexus,” nor does it obligate out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax in California.
This holds true for California retailers that advertise in other states – they are not obligated to collect sales tax in states simply because they advertise there.
Read it all.
And, it is a very bad idea.
2 Comments »
Posted by Flap in Dilbert