In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided against a fantastical bullshit challenge to the legality of mifepristone:
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?
The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.
There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.
So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.
The Supreme Court is corrupt. Democrats must win in November and force court reform.
“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.
A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.
I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.
It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.
Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
Optimism opens the door to great things.
If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!
Never forget that he train is barreling down on Trump, even as he dances on the tracks.
Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.
Battle won, war still ongoing.
When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?
The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.
There’s always a light at the end of the frog.
The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.
You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.
Bark louder, little dog.
I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.
The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.
Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.
zhena gogolia
Let’s take the win. Hope it’s a harbinger of more wins to come.
TBone
They’re waiting for a “better” case to be pitched up to them AND there’s a poison pill hidden in this “win.” The ruling practically begs another entity “with standing” to let them burn
witcheswomen after the election.Betty
@zhena gogolia: Not likely. Bad decision on emergency room care.
Jeffro
truth
We should take up a collection and start buying our own SCOTUS justices.
Ancien Regime
Not implying this is anything less than highly sophisticated legal analysis, but did you actually read the opinion? It’s very conservative. No one took any nights off. Affirming the Fifth Circuit on standing would have opened the gates to environmentalists suing over every state, local and federal decision they didn’t like. Or anyone who’s pro-choice suing over anti-abortion state laws. Among many other horribles identified by Kavanaugh.
This isn’t a pro-choice decision. It’s a restricting access to the federal courts decision. Viewing it through the abortion lens is both lazy and wrong.
TBone
@TBone: Mrs. Josh Hawley is determined.
https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/nation-and-world/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-to-abortion-drug-mifepristone-in-unanimous-ruling/
Steve in the ATL
Haven’t read through the comments on the previous thread, but I assume that someone noted the very, very, very simple fix to social security: raise or eliminate the cap.
Columnists can’t seem to see past “cut benefits!!!!”
TBone
@Jeffro: I’m in for $ one grand
Hoodie
@TBone: My guess is that they’ll find or gin up some plaintiff who took mifepristone by mail and claims some sort of injury. I’m kind of surprised they used this “concerned doctor” approach, but maybe mifepristone is so safe they couldn’t find anyone with an actual harm from obtaining it by mail, or at least one willing to be a plaintiff. Or maybe they’ve become so arrogant they thought they could get away with this cockamamie case.
TBone
@Hoodie:👍 hard agree. They are gonna find a way, they know they’ll lose the election over this if they do what they want before November, but are very hopeful that they’ll get their way after the election. IMO
Baud
@zhena gogolia:
Probably not a harbinger of anything. But at least mifepristone is safe for now.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ancien Regime: They have chosen to reach past equally absurd standing questions to get to the merits of a case in other cases. Deciding it on standing was legally correct, but it was also a political decision.
O. Felix Culpa
@Steve in the ATL:
Can’t imagine a reason for that, can you?
//
laura
Boom Lawyered podcast is gonna be lit this afternoon.
TBone
@Baud: yes, there is the silver lining plus regulatory authority of FDA still stands for now. So I’m half celebrating.
smith
@Hoodie: More likely they will sue on behalf of the partner who got a woman pregnant and thus had ownership rights to her body.
Jeffro
OT but be sure to save this one for the Fourth of July – it’s great for (verbally) beating up your RWNJ relatives, just as the Founders intended!
Who Says Trump and MAGA Own The American Flag?
Rick Reilly (of SI and other sportswriting fame) is shrill…good!
trump’s yuuuuge on the flag, but puny on what it stands for.
*I’m glad Reilly mentioned this one…it got memory-holed way, way too quickly
Baud
@laura:
You broke blog.
O. Felix Culpa
I can be happy for the women who need access to this drug, while still being clear-eyed about the venality and corruption of the SC majority.
Baud
@Hoodie:
Probably. Definitely worth a shot given the courts these days.
Hoodie
@Ancien Regime: Haven’t read it yet, but not surprising. There is nothing good coming out of this court. The reason to reject the case is because it’s a bullshit judicial usurpation of the regulatory rulemaking process, which has jack to do with standing. They retain all freedom to dismantle Chevron, which is where we’re heading.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@Steve in the ATL:
They deliberately choose not to see past ‘cut benefits’.
laura
@Baud: yep. My mad skillz at linking a youtube are abysmal. However, my admiration for Angry Black Lady and Hegemommy knows no bounds.
Jeffro
@Steve in the ATL: raising the SS cap would basically unite the country overnight
(ok, on just this one issue, but still!)
Raising the cap, reducing benefits for high earners, gradually raising the retirement age, and increasing the payroll tax get the support of over 70% of both Rs and Ds
(we’d have to get an A.I.-generated trumpov to tell the MAGAts that he supports all of this, of course…otherwise, they won’t know if they’re for or against these changes)
Nora
I can’t imagine what a law school course in Constitutional Law — or Federal Courts, for that matter — would entail now. Standing? Limited Jurisdiction? Sure, if the case suits these particular “justices”.
Omnes Omnibus
@comrade scotts agenda of rage: Can’t. Won’t. A little from column A, a little from column B.
Starfish
@TBone: They are waiting for it not to be an election year where people will punish their preferred political party for this.
Baud
Legally speaking, the trademark case today is more interesting. The women justices (including Barrett) basically call Thomas an idiot (using the genteel language of the Supremes).
Omnes Omnibus
@Nora: It’s probably a bunch of Socratic questioning about lines of Constitutional cases just like it always has been.
TBone
This made me LOL 😆
“Is anyone on board an Air Marshall? Would anyone like to be?”
https://x.com/TheDailyShow/status/1801223328360751315
TBone
@Starfish: that’s exactly what I opined above at #10 and boy howdy do we need to WIN.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@Omnes Omnibus:
The paranoid cynic in me always thinks that any time some pundit harps on “saving” SS and only mentions “cut benefits”, they or the corporate media outlet they work for are really just about undercutting SS so as to make it easier for the next GQP preznit/House/Senate to privatize.
These same people would have been fighting against SS during FDR’s time.
We’ve been hearing the same crap since Ronald Fucking Reagan took office and *the* one thing that “saves” it and has overwhelming support is raising the payroll tax cap. It gets mentioned plenty but golly gee, nothing’s ever been done to raise it. I wonder why (he says rhetorically).
Bobby Thomson
Con Law has always been dictated by politics. (I’m a legal realist.) But it became overtly egregious in the 90s.
TBone
I’m awaiting Jessica Valenti’s words on today’s ruling. It takes time, maybe tomorrow or the next day.
https://jessica.substack.com/
David Hunt
I just found out that Thomas wrote a concurrence instead of just signing on the Kavanaugh’s opinion. WTF kind of crazy-ass shit did he feel the need to add on? If I had to guess, it’s something like “While the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue, I’d have ordered the drug discontinued and the formula wiped from memory if I had an excuse to rule on the merits.”
Baud
Why would raising the cap (which would affect rich people) be less likely to undermine SS politically than cutting benefits for rich people?
Baud
@David Hunt:
No. He signed on. His concurrences is about getting rid of associational standing, which wasn’t really at issue in this case (since the association claimed it’s own injury, not injury of its members).
Ancien Regime
Affirming the Fifth Circuit would have opened the door to a vast wave of federal court litigation challenging every action taken at every level of government. Even Alito and Thomas could see that the short-term win would have been outweighed by long-term chaos, much of which would have ended up right back in their laps.
This is not a pro-choice decision. It is not a pro-rights decision. Nor is it a bone thrown to voters by reactionary justices. This is a conservative decision that limits access to the federal courts. Correctly, in my opinion, but entirely in line with the long-term goals of the Federalist Society.
Omnes Omnibus
@David Hunt: He wrote an essay on “associational standing” which he thinks the Court should address at some point.
TBone
Meanwhile, returning to the scene of the crime (I hope they all sit in PEW hahahahaha)
https://www.wonkette.com/p/trump-at-capitol-begging-mike-johnson
JPL
@Baud: IMO Social Security was started as an insurance and not an entitlement. Republicans have worked hard to let it fall into the entitlement category so they would have more reason to cut it. Just my opinion though.
Steve in the ATL
Has been that way for a LONG time, just with different names (remember that asshole Rehnquist, among others?). It’s confusing for students who are trying to understand the application of law but easy for students when they realize that the tortured reasoning is only there to justify a preordained result.
Assholes.
smith
@TBone: Good to know he’s terrified at any rate.
Omnes Omnibus
I don’t recall saying that it was any of those things.
Old School
@Baud:
If I understand your question, means-testing the benefits needlessly complicates the process and opens the door to “why don’t we cut this group’s benefits too?” scenarios.
Raising the cap keeps it clean and doesn’t add to the bureaucracy.
Omnes Omnibus
@Steve in the ATL: It was actually one of my best courses in law school. Much better than Commercial Paper, for example.
Omnes Omnibus
@Old School: Yep. Everyone gets it. Everyone pays. It is universal.
Baud
@Old School:
Thanks. That makes sense about means testing. But the other way to cut benefits is to change the formula to reduce the size of big monthly checks, which would most likely affect rich people. I don’t know if that’s in the table, but that would seem to be politically damaging just like raising the cap would be (although different groups would be affected).
smith
@Old School: The amount of income tax you pay on SS is already based on your other income, so some level of means testing is already built in.
I also think raising, or preferably abolishing, the cap is easier to explain, and easier for normies to get behind. They see SS payments going out of every paycheck — why should rich people be excused from that after a time every year?
Steeplejack
@TBone:
The Catholic Spirit is, of course, a partisan source, but it’s still interesting how the “respected experts” get whitewashed into the mainstream. Looking one inch below the surface, you find that the impressive-sounding Charlotte Lozier Institute is (per Wikipedia) “the research arm of the political advocacy group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.” Also: “The Texas Tribune has called Skop ‘the first call for anyone looking for an OB/GYN to publicly defend abortion restrictions.’”
Baud
@Steeplejack:
At least they’re not politically motivated like ProPublica.
Cacti
That seems like a classic, Boomer-ish, “you get less because I said so” move.
Life expectancy in the United States isn’t going up. The full retirement age shouldn’t either.
Barbara
The claimed injury that justified standing in the lower courts is so batshit crazy that they had to issue a decision on standing.
I don’t particularly like the way the doctrine of standing has evolved because, for instance, with a complaint about the FDA, there are actually very few stakeholders that end up being able to claim an injury sufficient to support standing. Mostly, it’s pharmaceutical manufacturers or perhaps potential patients who could benefit from a drug that the FDA will not approve. Once the FDA approves a drug, there is basically no one who has standing to oppose that decision — because doctors don’t have to prescribe a drug they don’t think is safe, whatever the FDA says, and patients don’t have to take it.
So standing has become a one-way ratchet that provides much greater latitude for entities that would suffer economic loss to oppose an FDA decision than it does for individuals that might be harmed from a drug that was improvidently approved.
But I don’t think the answer is for anyone who doesn’t like a drug on moral or ethical grounds (as opposed to patient safety and efficacy) should be able to challenge the FDA. I am just pointing out some problems with the evolution of the judicial doctrine of standing.
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
@Cacti:
Damn right! If anything, we should aspire to lower the retirement age.
TBone
@Steeplejack: that’s why I went there. They’re not howling in agony, so taking that temperature is informative for me.
Baud
@Barbara:
In theory, a patient harmed by a drug not approved would have standing to sue for damages. Congress would need to authorize such a lawsuit, but if it did, I don’t think there’d be a standing issue.
Mike in NC
Abortion is the hill that the Republican Party is willing to die on.
Baud
@Mike in NC:
Willing to kill on too.
Bill Arnold
@Jeffro:
Thanks. Just ordered some smallish American Flag car magnets. Will put one on my Prius next to the “DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK” magnetic bumper sticker.
Old School
@Baud:
I don’t know that anyone is getting that big of a monthly check.
Looks like the maximum is $58,476 per year.
matt
@Jeffro: So basically steal the savings of people who paid in the most. Good luck with keeping that approach popular in the face of real campaigning.
TBone
@Baud: 😆
TBone
@smith: 💙😎
Barbara
@Baud: You can’t sue the FDA for damages under the FTCA because the FDA is making a decision that is committed to the discretion of the sovereign. Congress does allow the Federal Government to be sued for torts that don’t involve policy making decisions of agency officials. That’s okay. I don’t think the FDA should be liable for damages even if it does err. But the current doctrine of standing explains a lot about why it’s so hard to rectify clearly incorrect agency actions. Approval of Oxycodone versions, for instance.
trollhattan
@smith: The cap is dumb and arbitrary. “Okay, you’ve paid enough. You get to keep the rest.”
Might have made sense back in the day when very high incomes were subject to as much as 90% income tax but ever since Reagan top rates have been slashed, and slashed and slashed again. By comparison, the FICA tax burden is comical.
Baud
@Old School:
Thanks.
Belafon
You left out the part where they also ruled that emergency room doctors don’t have to perform abortions if they don’t want to.
Baud
@Barbara:
No, I agree, which is why I said Congress would need to pass a law. And I agree that such a law would create other issues, but it would get around the standing problem.
Bill Arnold
@Jeffro:
These two do NOT get my support.
Reducing benefits for high earners turns it in to welfare for old people. I.e. puts it more firmly on the chopping block.
Raising the retirement age presumes that there are not many professions that age out prior to the current retirement age. This is not the case. Bodies wear out for many trades, and the corporate world is very harsh to older (like post-40 or 50) people who are not in top management.
Steve in the ATL
@Omnes Omnibus: oh man C********* P**** was the worst!
ET: should have phrased it “In the ATL, J., concurs in judgment”
trollhattan
Marge, of the big-brain Greene family.
To summarize, your EV will evidently be subject to massive gas price increases and therefore, vote Trump. To be safe, I would also stock up on propane to make sure your smartphone stays charged.
rumpole
@TBone: winner winner chicken dinner.
And the only reason that they denied standing is because some civil rights or environmental plaintiff might use it to help their side of this religious struggle we’re in, and lord knows that we can’t have -those- people winning.
Baud
@Steve in the ATL:
Yeah, hold this in due course, mothafucka.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@Bill Arnold:
Agree. Means testing SS goes back to it’s beginning. There were myriad reasons to *not* means test, one being as mentioned above, everybody gets it. Means testing is a diversion to longer-term efforts to cut/gut/privatize it.
Raising retirement age is also short sighted.
trollhattan
@Bill Arnold: Agree. You put money into it and you get to receive money from it once you’re of age. No means-testing, no qualifications besides what everybody has to meet. Keeping the fund solvent is congress’ only task and that’s quite doable.
The well-heeled can always refuse to sign up if they really think it’s wrong to collect, or donate the sum if they choose to.
O. Felix Culpa
@Formerly disgruntled in Oregon: Agree. Thank not-a-boomer Reagan for both graduated raising of the and taxing SS benefits.
MinuteMan
I don’t think so. They knew that if they ruled against the contraceptive, it would go against them more strongly in the upcoming election. By ruling on the basis of standing, they left the door open for the forced-birthers to rejigger their case and come back again after the election.
TBone
Throwing Scooby snax
The Supreme Court, Clarence Trump writing the decision, wrote that a commercial website could not trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small” in selling merchandise for the 2024 political campaign.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/13/g-s1-2532/supreme-court-trump-t-shirts
wjca
Or someone who says she might order mifepristone, and then might have some kind of bad reaction. And so is injured by having to worry about it. Hey, if it works with hypothetical wedding cakes….
Steve in the ATL
@Jeffro:
@Cacti:
@Formerly disgruntled in Oregon:
Raising the retirement age may be popular now, but once Kay’s post explaining why it’s a bad idea goes viral, it will poll lower than Dean Phillips for President!
Seriously, she laid out a really good case.
la caterina
@Steve in the ATL: I think Partnership Tax was the worst. Even the professor did not understand it.
Geminid
@trollhattan: I saw someone call Rep. Greene a “Sheanderthal” and it really fit.
wjca
You left out making Social Security taxes apply to all income, not just “earned income.”
Steve in the ATL
@Baud:
“I got your unsecured and unregistered short-term obligation issued by an institutional borrower to investors who have temporarily idle cash right here, pal!”
Ok, we don’t need to do any more of this.
Trivia Man
@TBone: Until they overturn Chevron in 2 weeks
gratuitous
You are correct that Constitutional Law has become whatever Alito, Thomas and their benefactors say it is. The Perjured Justices have declared their policy that there is no such thing as “settled law,” at least where they don’t like prior Court decisions.
Now, you might think that would play havoc with the captains of industry. They famously like predictability and stability, so that they can make decisions and plan ahead. But for some reason, they all seem to be just fine with the chaotic rulings out of the Roberts Court, overturning precedent and re-litigating 200 years of jurisprudence, making every case before them a case of first impression.
TBone
@Geminid: oooh I like that one!
TBone
@wjca: good eye
Kent
We can also increase the types of income subject to the tax. Not just wage income, for example, but passive investment income as well. Why should the work I do get taxed but not the work my money does?
TBone
@Trivia Man: 😡😡😡
Gah!
Not looking forward to that additional rage.
Kent
It is also just a benefit cut. Plain and simple.
Omnes Omnibus
@la caterina: Some of us were sensible enough to take a course like Jurisprudence instead. The prof was a sort of anarchist hippy. A friend of mine tried to answer all the exam questions by quoting country music lyrics. He got an A.
trollhattan
Hah! :-)
Cro-Magnons probably coined it since, you know, they were really into hazing.
Belafon
@comrade scotts agenda of rage: The only group whose average lifetime in the US has gone up is the rich.
Steve in the ATL
@la caterina:
@Omnes Omnibus:
like my esteemed colleague on the B-J bench, I was fortunate enough not to take this class. I took a couple of other tax classes, though, that weren’t so bad, but maybe that was because I am ok with math. And with things that are non-intuitive and arbitrary.
The Thin Black Duke
My father died when he was 75.
But because he was in a strong union, he retired at 65 with a pension and good medical benefits.
My father got to stay at home and watch his grandchildren grow up. He wasn’t an overworked senior citizen pushing too many shopping carts in a Walmart parking lot.
Fuck raising the retirement age.
Omnes Omnibus
@Steve in the ATL: I was best in the classes in which one had to be comfortable with ambiguity. Con Law, Crim Law, Crim Pro, and Evidence. Some people really had trouble with that and wanted an ANSWER.
Cacti
Exactly this.
smith
Adam Schiff in Congress today channeling Mark Slackmeyer:
Steve in the ATL
@The Thin Black Duke:
I love it when the company and the union come to agreement on terms that work well for both sides. While your father’s situation was surely well before my time, this is the type of deal I strive for.
MomSense
I’m relieved Mifepristone is safe for now but to r EMTALA decision is a big problem.
rikyrah
@TBone:
me too. been checking my emails to see if she’s written something yet
cmorenc
A key issue the less thoroughly corrupt four RW justices (plus the three sort-of-LW justices) may be struggling with in the immunity case is how to craft a ruling that denies (at least in part) Presidential immunity as applied to Trump, which won’t thereby create an opening for rabid RW partisans to go after prosecuting Biden or other on vanishingly thin grounds if Trump wins in November. As to Alito and Thomas (the two really, quite sincerely corrupt RW justices), they are probably pushing behind the scenes for a rationale to let Trump entirely off the hook while creating a loophole in immunity perfectly, exactly crafted to allow a Trump Justice department to go full-bore after Biden.
Not saying here that SCOTUS ever should have taken up the immunity issue from the DC Circuit until post-trial, nor that the other RW four weren’t also motivated to insert delay to postpone any trial until after the election, in case Trump wins. But that pretty-much accomplished by the arrival of June already, they now might be struggling with how to not inadvertently open the door too wide to either total immunity or else limited immunity too narrow to prevent the ruling from becoming the launch-pad for a partisan venge-fest against present or former Presidents.
rikyrah
@Cacti:
clap clap clap
rikyrah
@The Thin Black Duke:
I hear you
Barbara
@rikyrah: Dahlia Lithwick probably has more insight on this particular case.
Steve in the ATL
@cmorenc:
Like the decision in Bush v. Gore?
Chet Murthy
Over at LG&M somebody once told a law school anecdote on this theme:
Prof asks Q: please define the meaning of ‘constitutional’
student answers: whatever you can get a bare majority of SCOTUS to vote for, and nothing more. nothing more.
The prof was not best-pleased.
SCOTUS is a Guardian Council (a la Iran). Or maybe a lifetime super-legislature. It sure ain’t an impartial court.
trollhattan
@smith: Well played, congressman, well played.
Citizen Alan
@Steve in the ATL: The single greatest personal disaster in my life came in 2005. I was a career law clerk for a District Court Judge and was on track to retire in two years ago with full benefits. But my boss at the time was a Bush appointee who gloated just a bit too much when Dubya was reelected and I came very close to a nervous breakdown over it, so I felt I had to quite for mental health reasons. And I have been playing catch-up ever since.
Sister Golden Bear
@Steve in the ATL: I agree with both raising and/or eliminating the cap and raising the max benefit levels — which would be beneficial to those of us living in expensive areas, like the SF Bay Area, where you’re officially classified as “low income” if you make less than $100K as a single adult and $150K for a family of four.
I’m fine with some sort of progressive limit to benefits, akin to marginal tax rates, up to a higher limit, plus raising the minimum benefits.
Yeah that doesn’t fix fully fix the Social Security deficits, but it fixes a known issue. And yes, it’s on my mind because I’m turning 60 and starting to look at what retirement might look like.
la caterina
@Omnes Omnibus: Good on your classmate! By the way, commercial paper comes in quite handy when defending residential mortgage foreclosures. A lot of foreclosure plaintiffs never read the UCC, to the benefit of some of my clients.
Sister Golden Bear
@Hoodie:
They’d also gotten cocky. They were used to shopping cases to the reactionary judge in Amarillo, TX, and having the Fifth Circuit uphold his decisions no matter how reactionary and farcical legally. Plus having the SCOTUS looking past little things like legal standing when they’ve wanted to rule on something. E.g. cases involving made-up businesses, that never actually had customers, suing to discriminate against LGBTQ people.
TBone
@smith: excellent. Rub noses in it. Was just reading about J.B. Pritzker doing so early.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/us/politics/trump-jb-pritzker-felony.html
Jeffro
@matt: the what??
who is stealing savings?
Social Security isn’t savings, if that’s what you meant.
Melancholy Jaques
@smith:
And there are a lot more people under the cap than over. The 2024 cap is $168,600. Last I looked, about 20% of Americans earn more than $150K.
“The social security fund would not have any problem if people making over $168,000 paid into it for all of their income.”
Does that work?
How many people know that there is a cap?
Mr. Bemused Senior
@Jeffro: K’Thrugman’s semi-humourous thumbnail description of the federal government [re. the budget] is “an insurance company with an army.”
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
Sister Golden Bear
@Old School:
Yep. And as I mentioned in a prior post that’s far lower than the $100K needed to not be classified as “low income” here in the Bay Area. I don’t expect retirees to earn as much as they did when working, but at least get SS payments nearer to clearing that line.
Maybe geographic adjustments are needed — much like I see different salary ranges listed for the same job in different parts of the country. Though I’m sure the conservatives would whine about “lib states” getting bigger payments.
Jackie
@smith: Eric Swalwell had some fun, too!
smith
I suspect a lot don’t, and would be extremely miffed to find out that high earners get off from paying into SS for part of the year.
Captain C
@Jackie:
This sounds like a good slogan for the Democrats this year.
TBone
Report on Dotard speaking at the Capitol:
“Like talking to your drunk uncle at the family reunion,” this source said.
Gretchen
The people who think raising the retirement age have secure desk jobs. How many roofers and landscapers can work until 70? How many people who get laid off in their 50s ever find a comparable job agains? (Not many).
Does anyone have a link to Kay’s explanation of why this is a bad idea?
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@The Thin Black Duke:
It’s counter productive on so many levels, personal, economics and societal.
Which is why the right’s always pushing it. JFC, I just stumbled onto a Bloomberg opinion piece by a former VP of the Tax Foundation, yet another right wing, austerity IGMFY non-profit founded by the Koch’s and the late Richard Scaife, saying that raising the retirement age is the “least bad” option.
Imagine my shock when I learned he’s not an asst prof in Chicago but at North Carolina. I’m betting their econ department is another of the austerity, fuck-you, trickle-down school.
Chet Murthy
@Gretchen: Fast food (food service generally), home health aides, nurses, farm work, construction, all retail work, ….. the list goes on and on.
Even data entry jobs are more difficult as you get older, b/c your accuracy goes down.
The world we live in is such a far, far cry from Keynes’ _Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren_. Sigh.
Geminid
@TBone: Or like a goofy Captain Ahab addressing the crew of the Pequod.
Sister Golden Bear
@The Thin Black Duke:
@Gretchen:
Definitely agree. Not only for the reasons mentioned, but also IIRC, a secondary intent of Social Security was to get retirement-age workers out of the workforce to open up positions for younger workers to move up the career ladder.
Hence the requirement that work income gets deducted from your Social Security payments.
(At least until full retirement age, not sure what happens after that. Can retired jackals help clarify.)
Sister Golden Bear
@Sister Golden Bear:
At the risk of coming off Boomer-bashing, there is a legit problem with (older) Gen X being able to move into senior management positions because Boomers aren’t retiring at the same rate as past generations and opening those positions up. Not saying this is Boomer selfishness — I understand the economic reasons — rather than it’s example of how insufficient Social Security benefits affects a wider circle than just retirees.
A related is the “sandwich generation” problem caused by retirees having to move in with their children — or having to get financial support from their children — because their retirement income isn’t sufficient to live on their own.
trollhattan
GMTA A terrific slogan.
SomeRandomGuy
re: “What is Constitutional Law anymore?” I’ve heard (over at Lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com) that this issue *is* starting to bubble up in law school. For example, the Supremes decided to strip preclearance from the voting rights act, even though it passed Congress with veto-proof majorities, because it’s unconstitutional to something, something, something, states rights, and so forth, anyway, it’s all there in the decision. (“Verbatim”, to quote Bloom County.)
You have the Chief Justice who says “well, if a pregnancy has passed viability, the imminent death of a pregnant woman creates an astounding set of circumstances for the doctor, wherein the doctor must choose to save one, the other, or both (if possible), and, if it hasn’t passed viability, the doctor *can’t* care about the fetus, and can only care about the pregnant woman. Wow, *I* can’t see how this has *ANYTHING* to do with reasoning about *abortion*, so, fuck it!” (“Verbatim.”)
(Side note: the SCOTUS lawyers (by which I mean the 9 judges) wrote into their ethics code that a judge *must not recuse* unless necessary. That’s Roberts *all* over. “Justice Thomas *would* recuse, but our code requires that he does not; he doesn’t feel that Leonard Leo hiring a prostitute to blow him gives him cause to recuse from a case in which Leonard Leo is being charged with being a pimp.”)
And you have good old Amy Bunny Hairpiece, so ethical she said “I don’t care if Trumpie-poo wants me to decide cases to win him the election, I’ll gladly rule, objectively and conservatively, in his favor, without ever once considering myself to have a conflict of interest, just like Justice Thomas.” (I don’t want to joke “verbatim” here to avoid defamation charges.)
Finally, you have Justice Thomas who said “(expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) n-word, get off my property you (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted)!” When reminded he was not in court, he asked us to leave.
Chief Oshkosh
@smith: The cap is currently about $168K. There’s a lot of voters who make a bit north of there who are nowhere near rich. They may not appreciate your suggestion. ;)
trollhattan
@Sister Golden Bear:
Piling on, there’s the issue of covering spouses and adult children under employer-provided healthcare after retirement, while dovetailing Medicare and supplemental Medicare insurance.
It’s vastly complicated and differs due to both the employer’s insurance choices and geography. Real dollar$ can be involved.
The death of pensions in much of the business world and shunting workers into 401ks as a “replacement” has resulted in vast swaths of retirement-age workers who cannot afford to do just that.
And can I get in a fuck you to Reagan for ruining IRAs?
Ramalama
@TBone: Just a wee addendum:
Mrs. Josh Hawley is determined, until she needs to have an abortion, whether the aspirin-between-the-legs preventative fails her, or until she needs life-saving medical intervention.
Omnes Omnibus
OT: Le Pen’s far right party nominates a candidate named Bigot.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
Do they know?
Steve in the ATL
@trollhattan:
…just about every single thing he did.
Steve in the ATL
@Baud: you know Marine and her party. That was probably the candidate’s biggest selling point!
Hard to believe she is even worse than her father….
TBone
@Omnes Omnibus: infinite facepalms
smith
@Chief Oshkosh: I realize that in some areas of the country that’s not rich, but it is well above the national household median of about $75K, and even in high income/high expense areas there are many, many people trying to get by on much less. Why should someone on the higher end be excused from paying in on all income, when someone with much less doesn’t get that advantage? It’s a really regressive tax, and I’ve never seen a convincing rationale for it.
TBone
@Ramalama: as always, nothing is real until it happens to them. I wonder if they have female children but do not care enough to look that up.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: I presume it was why he got the nom.
Omnes Omnibus
And yet here we are.
Baud
@smith:
It’s not regressive. SS is actually progressive because lower income folks get back more relative to what they pay in. The cap under the current formula has the effect of capping SS payments at the back end, since payments are based on contribution amounts.
TBone
@SomeRandomGuy: 💙 your way with words.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@Steve in the ATL:
He ruined pensions. IRAs were the earliest GOP privatization effort at retirements and all designed to screw the pension system.
Fuck Reagan. And fuck the normalization of so much of what was enacted when he was in office.
Belafon
@Sister Golden Bear: We also need to create some things for retirees to do. Not everyone wants to travel, teach, or sit and watch TV. They want to keep busy. Especially since, if they have nothing else to do, some will go to school board and city council meetings and run for office.
sab
@Baud: And the big secret in Medicare is that Medicare premiums for high income people are substantially higher than for everybody else. Like two or three times higher.
TBone
@Geminid: 😆 I used to troll him on social media
“Captain Queef!”
Over and over
Belafon
@Chief Oshkosh: How many is a lot, and how many of them vote for Democrats?
Baud
@Belafon:
Doesn’t matter. Our problem is we can get only about half of the voters who make under that.
TBone
@TBone: oh dear. He’s fantasizing about Nancy Smash.
https://digbysblog.net/2024/06/13/trumps-twisted-fantasy/
TBone
https://www.rawstory.com/judge-aileen-cannon-2668512024/
She gonna make mischief at trial says Harry. Details are hair raising.
trollhattan
Meanwhile, Dark Brandon is off presidentin’ while Brandon.
How to say “fuck you, Vlad” without saying “fuck you, Vlad.”
gene108
@Baud:
The monthly payment a person receives is based on some actuarial formula on how much they contributed during their work life and how old they are when taking it.
Tweaking the formula to reduce the a amount new top earner enrollees get shouldn’t be too hard. The formula for what people get each month gets tweaked constantly based on things like inflation, revenue, etc.
The SS taxable income cap seems to rise a little bit every year or every few years, but still stops for top earners before the year runs out.
David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch
the corrupt supremes where never going to allow open season on their private equity sugar daddies who heavily invest in Pharma and Biotech.
The stock for the corporation that produces mifepristone has more than tripled in the last 5 years. Were they to sneeze then the rest of pharma would catch cold.
trollhattan
@Steve in the ATL:
Can confirm. Avuncular Trump the best I can say about Reagan. He subbed out his internal nastiness to henchmen, and what a bunch that White House was. Hey everybody, it’s Ed Meese! (Checked, still dead.)
SomeRandomGuy
@Chief Oshkosh: if you’re making north of 150k, and can’t plan for a bit of an extra bite on the part above 168k, then the problem is not that the government needs extra money for social security. Yes, people in the 150k-250k range are going to complain, because Republicans have convinced us the government should set all tax rates to 0, so economic expansion would fill government coffers with an infinite amount of money.
And don’t tell me those people don’t feel anywhere near rich, as if this means they can’t be taxed. I get it. No one likes taxes. But we need them. And if you care about the elderly and the disabled, you pay your social security tax without being a whiny ass titty baby, assuming you’re patriotic. Of course, if you’re a Republican, you don’t think you *need* a government, because those two guys who are about to decide you look a bit gay are about to stomp the fuck out of you, but you’re too stupid to think bad things can happen to you, because YOU have a GUN, and so, when the sap falls on the back of your head, you can wake up without money or cards, and the gun you had in the small of your back has been wearing a nasty bruise into your spine, you can think “at least the government is small enough to drown in a bathtub.”
(In a perfect story, said bigot would wake up with an Airsoft gun, and a zombie teen saying “I traded guns, motherfucker!” Sorry – I’m referencing the bigot in Washington, who deserves to have that nightmare every day for the rest of his life, unless there’s a worse one for him.)
All that said, it would be easier to put a 2% rate increase on all income (including capital gains) – the problem there, is the social security funds are now commingled with “everyday” funds. They always were… remember the “surplus” under Clinton? We were still buying SSA bonds the entire time.
Ruckus
@Hoodie:
@TBone:
This is one of those “Let’s go back to the 1700s medicine concepts.”
I’m old enough to remember when doctoring wasn’t much more than a stethoscope and a “sharp” scalpel, you know when polio was still active and 4 people I knew had it.
TBone
Let them fight! Fractious RWNJ goings on in France
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240613-french-right-wing-parties-fracture-as-macron-s-snap-poll-reshapes-politics
SomeRandomGuy
@Bill Arnold: Put better, “we shouldn’t raise retirement age for construction workers, just because lawyers are living longer!”
(Not just lawyers – all the people who have a chance to think “I don’t get enough exercise; I would enjoy an hour at the gym!” because they’re not exhausted and time-deprived after their work week. But few lawyers dig ditches, or worry about a huge pile of materials shifting, or strap on a safety line to go up on the roof….)
Misterpuff
@Steeplejack: Wikipedia “explains” why the Institute is named after her:
This is their hero.
Old School
@SomeRandomGuy:
There have been proposals to create a bubble wherein the FICA tax gets reinstated on income above a certain level (say $250,000 or $400,000). It’s a bit more cumbersome, but that does deal with those issues.
Ruckus
@Jeffro:
“Go Trump”? Great idea. Go, Trump, as far away as possible. But leave the flag.
Maybe we could use him to calculate life span in a space flight….
Maybe we could – oh hell I don’t actually know – other than pretty much anyone else with a sentence of 35 (or however the hell many, it is not an insignificant number) felonies, give him jail time, an orange jumper and OK solitary confinement.
Anyway
@Kent:
Yes! Fuck “unearned” income.
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: I haven’t checked carefully, but isn’t it the case that the maximum FICA tax is related to the maximum benefit? IOW, raising the cap means raising the maximum benefit? Google tells me the maximum benefit (at full retirement age) is $3,822/mo as of January 2024.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were big political battles if someone wanted to dramatically raise the maximum FICA tax (beyond “gubmint taking my moneez”). We should be prepared for those “fairness” arguments, especially if we want the taxes to go up much more than the maximum benefit.
Cheers,
Scott.
Steve in the ATL
@SomeRandomGuy:
you know we’ve been doing Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. quotes the last couple of days. Here’s a relevant one:
SomeRandomGuy
@gene108: It’s inflation adjusted, and that’s why it’s gotten fairly high over the past few years. The SS cap used to be 120k, and that also used to set the maximum allowed in Defined Contribution pension plan, I believe. It’s been a LONG time, and the laws have certainly changed, but, the maximum used to be 30k a year, or 1/4th of the SS cap. With the SS cap up around – 160k, someone mentioned? – that means the max contribution is now 40k.
Back in the early 90s, when I studied pensions, they said it wasn’t expected that the SS cap would increase in the near future. But it’s no longer the “near future” for the 90s, alas.
Fun fact: at the time, 95% of all salary was caught by the Social Security (and Medicare) tax; I’ve seen several articles saying that’s no longer the truth, *and* I’ve seen statements to the effect that, if we *still* caught 95% of salary, social security would be on a firm footing.
So, this is a reason I’m not too sympathetic for those who whine about the extra tax. That, and I know what “rich” means in the practical/pragmatic sense.
You know one thing that would make the US a heck of a lot richer? Child care. Small rural communities would see someone set up child care centers, and make bank. People would naturally compete for child care dollars. And if they spent the money locally, that would rejuvenate a lot of dying communities. People might move back in, and if the schools are good, you might not even have to wait 20 years for things to improve.
That’s pragmatic rich – knowing you can work, or stay home, and the kids will be cared for, without having to hire a full time nanny.
gvg
@rumpole: That is a good reason to limit standing though. Not our specific favored causes but the fact that it would open the floodgates to all kinds of lawsuits way beyond this one case, leading to chaos.
Its not just “our side” that would gain standing on many issues, it’s “their side” too. Too many with no real merit, undoing so much that is useful. It would add expense and uncertainty to so many businesses that it could cause a recession. Thats if I understand what the lawyers are saying.
The antiabortion fanatics tried to do too much with no regard for what else could happen that would be so bad even for their supporters, that the court said no.
They were trying for one weird trick instead of the slow but never give up long term strategy that got them this far. If we are lucky that is because they are feeling the heat since Roe fell and are desperate.
Steve in the ATL
@SomeRandomGuy:
This awfully specific and detailed. So…did this happen to you, or is this the synopsis of a screenplay you’re pitching? I’m thinking Jake Gyllenhaal for the lead, for obvious reasons.
Ruckus
@JPL:
Social Security was started as an insurance and not an entitlement.
This is true but it of course over time, it changed a tad in the concept of working people. Yes all of us put money into it according to our wages but we also put money into it from income tax. I have no idea how much I put into it over the 60 yrs I worked and paid into it but it wasn’t an insignificant amount. And while I do not get a large amount per month it is more than it costs me to live somewhat/reasonably comfortably. And that helps one live longer, which, if I’m not mistaken is the damn point of it in the first place.
mvr
@Cacti: They already raised the retirement age when the Rs yelled crisis in the 80s and Allen Greenspan was supposed to be a genius. And as you say it is a bad idea. Raising the cap is a good one in any case. It isn’t that social security is too generous, even to those of us who earn a decent wage. It is that our tax policies are unrealistic over the long haul because realism requires taxing the better off more than we do. And of course there are further explanations for that as well.
Ruckus
@Cacti:
The full retirement age shouldn’t either.
I second this. However I will note that the age for full retirement is between 66 and 67. I do not know if this has changed over time.
Ruckus
@The Thin Black Duke:
Fuck raising the retirement age.
I agree.
And here is the thing, one doesn’t have to retire when they get there unless the company/union requires you to. And no I do not know if that’s illegal. I retired at 72 and SS has served me well. But many people really should retire at the normal current or even lower age, because some jobs can really suck the life out of you. Let’s say you are a cop. Say you get the job at 25 and you work 30 yrs – you’re 55 yrs old and can’t collect SS for around a decade. Now sure you likely have a decent pension but still you put into SS, both as a deduction and your employer’s share, just like everyone else. You earned it but can’t collect it for what might likely feel like a long time. Just one example. And no, I wasn’t a cop, nor did I have any other government job.
Ruckus
@smith:
There is a limit to how much someone can get with SS. And it is a lot lower than what someone making $150K a year gets. But of course if you were making $150K (or more) a year and are not a complete doofus, you should have been able to save at least a slight bit of cash.