Back in 2013 the Seattle Times editorial board repeatedly advocated against a technical fix to Washington’s estate tax, calling it both “legally and economically wrong.”
Given the current crisis of income inequality in America they are certainly welcome to continue to argue the latter. But as for their stoopid, stoopid legal arguments, well, the Washington State Supreme Court has once again proven the editors to be constitutionally incapable of interpreting the constitution:
The state Supreme Court has upheld the Washington estate tax as it was amended by state lawmakers in 2013.
The court handed down its unanimous ruling Thursday. The opinion was authored by Justice Charles Wiggins and leaves in place a tax-law change that was meant to preserve an estimated $160 million in the current biennium.
I’m not sure what’s worse—that the editors arrogantly thought they knew better than all the lawyers advising state legislators, or that they didn’t think they knew better and just decided to fake it in an effort to snow readers?
* No, Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen isn’t technically dead, just the five-generation family media empire that’s been pissed away on his watch.
Looks like the gross estate tax in WA kicks in for those estates in excess of $2,000,000.
You expect Nazis to know what the Constitution is or to follow it?
@2
I don’t expect anybody in our own government to do that even though they all swear to “support and defend the Constitution,” much less anybody in the Nazi Party.
@2 Speaking as a retired goverment lawyer, fuck you.
4
Did Teabagger offend you?
Shorter Seattle Times Editorial
“We’re not lawyers but we think this is how the law reads and so that is what the law is.”
Reading the Times editorials on legislation and Court decisions is like putting a legal question on 4chan and expecting accurate legal advice.
@5 I guess so. Not sure why he was offended. I was referring to Republicans. They are the biggest hypocrites going. The say they defend the Constitution but then they want to ban gay people from getting married. They say they are for freedom, but want to deny rights. Just about every judge, liberal and non liberal, are calling the bans unconstitutional. Why are people still trying to defend the bans and deny people rights.
We have bigger issues like the spread of Ebola and radical Islamists. Wake up people.
The fact that politicians (and voters) actually put gay marriage bans to a vote is a travesty and flies in the face of freedom. People should be ashamed of themselves if they think they are for freedom and conformance to the Constitution and want to take a popularity vote on individual rights.
@5 No, just a typo; @4 replies to @3, but I think you knew that.
No, but this guy is rolling over in his grave…
http://www.historylink.org/ind.....le_id=1681
8
No, I was curious because it didn’t exactly match-up.
@10 It does now.
@4
Speaking as a retired military guy, fuck you.