Trump has moved ahead by retreating, signing an Executive Order which may change the storyline on the border, although legal issues remain.
But ending the practice of separating families still faces legal and practical obstacles. A federal judge could refuse to give the Trump administration the authority it wants to hold families in custody for more than 20 days, which is the current limit because of a 1997 court order.
Once again, those who over-invested in defending Trump's former approach experience whiplash.
John D Davidson of The Federalist tells us how we got here. I should add, given the large and growing backlog, Team Trump had to know that a shift to 'zero-tolerance' would lead to the chaos currently in the news. But of course, Trump courts chaos - when everybody is screaming the person with the biggest megaphone wins. Or substitute 'Twitter account'.
Consider it a Cloward-Piven Jujitsu of the left's schemes. Trump is breaking the swamp by applying the rules, the megaphoning what a bunch of chumps the left are for setting things up to be broken and have more money wasted against the interests of the American people.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:07 AM
This is from an e-mail I get from the WSJ's "Best of the Web Today" column (which I can't get because the rest of it is behind the paywall.
"The Beginning of a Trump Trade Deal?
Germany is prepared to lower tariffs.
Like most of the world’s investors, this column sees mostly downside from President Donald Trump’s confrontations with allies over the terms of trade. But the best news of the day is an intriguing possibility for trade peace and more open commerce with our friends in Europe.
At the rancorous G7 meeting recently in Canada, Mr. Trump suggested tariff-free trade among the participants. The proposal received no public endorsement from any of the assembled leaders of Europe or Japan. But maybe the beautiful idea isn’t dead yet. The Journal reports:
Germany’s leading auto makers have thrown their support behind the abolition of all import tariffs for cars between the European Union and the U.S. in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the brewing trade war.
The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, brought the proposal for a broader industry trade pact to the Trump administration on Wednesday, according to people familiar with the situation.
That would mean scrapping the EU’s 10% tax on auto imports from the U.S. and other countries and the 2.5% duty on auto imports in the U.S. As a prerequisite, the Europeans want President Donald Trump’s threat of imposing a 25% border tax on European auto imports off the table.
Our ambassador to Germany appears to be yet another great Trump hire. Just look at him go:
Over the past few weeks, Mr. Grenell has held closed-door meetings with the chiefs of all major German automotive companies, including bilateral meetings with the CEOs of Daimler AG , BMW AG and Volkswagen AG, which operate plants in the U.S. Overall, Germany’s auto makers and suppliers provide 116,500 jobs in the U.S., according to the Association of German Automotive Manufacturers.
During these talks, which the ambassador initiated, the managers said they would back the scrapping of all import tariffs on trans-Atlantic trade in automotive products as the keystone of a broader deal covering industrial goods. The German government is on board and Mr. Grenell promised to support the idea, according to U.S. and German officials.
There are many ways this could end badly, and this column thinks that in some ways it already has with the imposition of higher U.S. tariffs. Here’s hoping for a quick resolution that prevents the Trump trade agenda from disrupting the encouraging progress of the Trump economy.
***"
No shit sherlock.
The WSJ was at one time the absolute best in terms of intelligently addressing the world from a conservative perspective, and the current BOTW guy, James Freeman, is generally very good.
But damn they are slow on the uptake when it comes to "trade" and "immigration."
Posted by: boatbuilder | June 21, 2018 at 10:10 AM
Story at link.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:17 AM
Kevin McHale was (possibly) spotted at the rally last night and the moonbatosphere is demanding that he be fired from TNT.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | June 21, 2018 at 10:19 AM
This is very bad.
CNBC Now @CNBCnow
16s
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules for South Dakota in bid to require out-of-state online retailers to collect sales tax
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:20 AM
henry,
Yikes, it sure is! As a former eBay seller I know what a mess that would be for small sellers, especially.
I can see eBay sellers saying "no sales to South Dakota" but that would probably get a court challenge as well.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:23 AM
Court holds that the physical presence rule of Quill Corp. v. ND is unsound and incorrect.
This is horrible.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:23 AM
I'll say it's bad, henry. I'm sure it will be an incomprehensible opinion, and I'll need to deal with countless questions on its application to specific transactions. Pity party for TC!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM
Kennedy with Thomas, Alito amongst the concurring. Jibberish. If you want to stop the economy dead in its tracks via bureaucratic hell, this is exactly how to do it.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM
Here's the opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 21, 2018 at 10:28 AM
I know what a mess that would be for small sellers, especially.
Which is the whole point. Croynism wins again.
Posted by: James D. | June 21, 2018 at 10:28 AM
The US Supreme Court just ruled for taxation without representation. efemall.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:28 AM
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1009792057311821824.html
This is a guy I follow on Twitter, Nick Falaco. He makes a pretty good case that General Flynn's 302's were falsified, backing it up with text messages and a timeline.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM
As nexus applies equally for income tax, that burden is added as well.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:31 AM
Much as with eickenrode his interviews shaped the plame case
http://google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5856891/amp/Osama-Bin-Ladens-driver-linked-2012-Benghazi-attacks-killed-envoy-captured-Libya.html
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 10:32 AM
Kennedy now has one hell of a legacy: unrestricted eminent domain plus taxation without representation.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:33 AM
henry,
You know damn well that every state that collects sales tax will jump on board
People who don't deal with on-line sales don't realize the headaache this will cause.
First of all, you would have to have a list of states that collect sales tax AND the rates (because sales tax rates go from 2% to 11%).
Then, you would have to keep track of which customeris from which state.
Then, you would have to have a mechanism to calculate the tax owed by that customer, and include it in the billing.
THEN you would have to have a running total for each state and file with them every quarter.
MASSIVE amount of bookwork and non-productive time!!
It's possible someone like Amazon can handle it, but the little guy is certainly screwed with this ruling.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:34 AM
Yes they found the right to arm bears, finally.
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 10:39 AM
Stuart Varney discusses this. Video at link. On-line sales places have their stocks sinking right now.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:39 AM
The last paragraph of the main SCOTUS opinion, henry, suggests that in specific cases dormant Commerce Clause restrictions could still come into play. But, on an initial reading of the opinion, I think it will be easy for states to enact statutes that pass muster. The opinion gives the states a roadmap in the last paragraph.
Small sellers may well be protected by state statutes. However, figuring out whether the an exemption applies itself will be a burden on small sellers.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 21, 2018 at 10:41 AM
Amazon can handle the lawyers when audited as a microscopic percent of revenues. For the rest of us it can exceed revenues. Please note that a sales tax audit consists of:
1. some asshole showing up at your place of business representing state X.
2. they demand immediate access to a locked office space.
3. they demand immediate access to your books and accounting system. (unrestricted by HIPPA or anything else).
4. they misinterpret what your products do / change the classifications then hit yuou with massive fines.
5. they apply laws that do not exist in the states they represent.
6. some activities (say things performed in WI for a customer elsewhere) have a conflict over which state gets to tax it.
6. you pay lawyers to fix their mistakes.
7. they state they represent does not reimburse you for this fraud wasting your time and money.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:42 AM
Trump supported the SCOTUS decision I assume because it weakens Amazon.
https://apnews.com/332abb7455cb4b60b2effc0852ff3c89
Posted by: Tom R | June 21, 2018 at 10:43 AM
henry,
You just added another level to the complaint I had. I never had to deal with an audit because I was so small.
Holy cow!
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:44 AM
Your 10:42 AM post, henry, indicated why Congress should pass uniform legislation under the Commerce Clause bringing uniform rules to this area. That is of course unlikely to happen.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 21, 2018 at 10:45 AM
Before I believe AP, I want a quote from an administration official, Tom R.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM
South Dakota SCOTUS ruling violates the second principle which determines a state's right under law to regulate interstate commerce: "States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce."
We're just POS rubes wantin' something for nothing so i guess the burden is just and necessary.
This is very bad news for my businesses.
Posted by: Kevlar Kid | June 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM
First of all, you would have to have a list of states that collect sales tax AND the rates (because sales tax rates go from 2% to 11%).
It is even worse than that. Various counties, cities, and districts have their own sales tax pile-ons to cover various initiatives.
There is a community in San Diego that calculates your sales tax (for purchases of RVs, cars, and boats) based off of your address.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM
Threadkiller,
YIKES again! I didn't know that, as we have no taxes like that in Indiana, except for a restaurant tax of 1% in Indianapolis.
Well, why don't we just throw a big bomb into the center of on-line commerce?
This screws both buyers and retailers.
Varney said places like Wal-Mart supported this because they have brick-and-mortar presence in all 50 states.
So the people on Etsy (even smaller operations than eBay) are going to have to get tons of forms and calculate sales tax for every sale of a knitted cap.
This is simply unbelievable.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:51 AM
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
7m7 minutes ago
Democrats want open Borders, where anyone can come into our Country, and stay. This is Nancy Pelosi’s dream. It won’t happen!
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 10:51 AM
ChiTown Lurker alerted me to the fact that that scummy Stormy Daniels attorney, Avenatti, has arrived at the southern border to "represent" illegals.
I hope wherever he meets with the criminals they put down some of that cat litter like granular stuff gas stations use to keep the grease from ruining the store. Chances are they're delivering blow to him and his other client.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 10:52 AM
store == floor.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 10:53 AM
If I am reading this correct this is the first time I recall Ginsburg siding with conservatives. Roberts sided with the liberals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Posted by: Tom R | June 21, 2018 at 10:53 AM
SD claims it is losing out on an estimated $60 million in sales tax revenue.
Would be interested in the calculus behind their estimates.
Posted by: Kevlar Kid | June 21, 2018 at 10:53 AM
TK, you forgot state by state (and city by city) tax variations based on product classification. Think Philadelphia's soda tax.
it is not one rate for all products by state. different products are exempt by state.
then, based on activity levels you may have to file paperwork (and send money) annually, semi-annually, quarterly, monthly etc by state.
Software can automate some of this (it isn't cheap). But the classifications are an "I know it when I see it" thing. You will need lawyers at some point.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 10:53 AM
I linked his saul Goodman impression on the other thread.
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 10:54 AM
Before I believe AP, I want a quote from an administration official, Tom R.
Here is the administration's amicus brief, MM:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-494/37747/20180305180114702_17-494tsacUnitedStates.pdf
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 10:55 AM
Queen Roberts is GWB's Souter.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 10:56 AM
TK, you forgot state by state (and city by city) tax variations based on product classification. Think Philadelphia's soda tax.
Sin taxes on cigs and alc to pay for stadiums.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM
Coming to your community:
http://www.thetower.org/6372-part1-how-durham-came-to-discriminate-against-israel-and-the-jewish-people/
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 11:07 AM
Better not call saul:
http://mobile.twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1009594389616881665
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 11:08 AM
Just to clarify:
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 11:10 AM
Hmmmmmmm . . .
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
That breakout says this is a decision in favor of Main Street and smaller, traditional businesses. Plus, it seems to be a call for Congress to do its damn job and address the issues arising from the decision. I have no problems with that.
Posted by: RattlerGator | June 21, 2018 at 11:10 AM
Threadkiller,
Scanned it and it is obvious to me that DOJ knows nothing about business and should not have filed an amicus brief at all.
Maybe their time could have been better spent finding those documents the House Intelligence Committee wants.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM
Damn, TK.
Posted by: RattlerGator | June 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM
California has 58 counties, each with a different sales tax.This ruling is going to create a complete mess.
Posted by: matt - deplore me if you must | June 21, 2018 at 11:13 AM
Intel's Brian Krzanich was forced out as CEO following an investigation into a "consensual relationship with an Intel employee," the company announced Thursday.
Brings new meaning to "Intel Inside"
Posted by: Neo | June 21, 2018 at 11:14 AM
That breakout says this is a decision in favor of Main Street and smaller, traditional businesses.
Not a chance. It dooms them to stay on main street until bankrupt, with no chance to tap into remote markets as Amazon, Walmart et al crush them through online markets.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 11:15 AM
That breakout says this is a decision in favor of Main Street and smaller, traditional businesses.
Local business has to factor in sales tax already. Online has not had to do so. Levels the playing field a bit.
Posted by: sbw | June 21, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Miss hrabar probably wrote the thing up, the brief i mean.
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Okay, Henry. maybe it lengthens the slow death.
Posted by: sbw | June 21, 2018 at 11:17 AM
Banging the hired help is not a good bidness practice.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 11:17 AM
RattlerGator,
There are a HUGE number of small businesses which have retail sales on-line. Look at eBay,, for example, or Etsy. This doesn't count people who sell on-line as distributors of everything from baskets and candles to supplements. This will be a huge burden to them.
I DO have a problem with it, as this favors one class of retailer over another. Sure, it helps Wal-Mart and hurts Amazon. Who cares?
What I care about are the people trying to slog out a buck using an on-line site because they cannot afford the overhead of a regular retail store, or they line in smaller communities where foot traffic isn't enough and so they supplement their business income with on-line sales.
This is a crappy decision, no two ways about it.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:17 AM
It's possible someone like Amazon can handle it, but the little guy is certainly screwed with this ruling.
That is exactly the point.
Posted by: James D. | June 21, 2018 at 11:17 AM
Yes, there's absolutely a chance henry. Trump certainly sent a signal with his Amazon / Bezos commentary. He may have something up his sleeve.
* * *
Back to the topic of this post: my goodness, TM, this is a fascinating line:
Once again, those who over-invested in defending Trump's former approach experience whiplash.
TM . . . you rascal, are you baiting me with that line ???
Over-invested?
Whiplash?
Do tell.
Posted by: RattlerGator | June 21, 2018 at 11:18 AM
I suspect that what will happen is that a third party will provide tax calculation for local businesses for a transaction fee.
As a local business, I do not wish to reinvent the wheel.
[Actually, as a local newspaper, I am not taxed ’cause the gubmint could abuse the power. Big surprise.]
Posted by: sbw | June 21, 2018 at 11:19 AM
The Southern Cup of the Unlimited Hydroplane series is being held this weekend at the lake. The city has a population of 8,400 - and 20,000 deplorables are expected each day of the races.
In a related event, we've begun taking delivery of the 820 cases of beer I ordered for the weekend. Forty cases of PBR are included in that lot. Manbuns sold separately... :)
Posted by: Beasts of England | June 21, 2018 at 11:20 AM
I am certain the fire heros will be doing a happy dappy feed-the-worship-boot street corner dance over the ruling.
The future 48 year old pensioners deserve that revenue.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 11:21 AM
CHTown says that not only does every county in Illinois have a different sales tax, but those sales taxes are overlayed with township taxes AND city/town taxes!!
He said the Cook County sales tax is way more than 11%.
Nothing I would love more than having Cook County (Chicago) auditing my books.
Good grief!!!
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:21 AM
sbw, that already exists- one of them (Avalara) just had an IPO.
The expense is not the calculation. It is the audit and product classification. Disproportionate impact on small to medium firms.
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 11:22 AM
MM, I'd say the status quo prior to this decision hurt Mom and Pop businesses and favored the new.
I've heard them argue it often. A brick-and-mortar like Walmart already has to do this; now, so will Amazon.
Again, we need to stop looking for the Courts to be primary. This was always an issue that should be dealt with in the branch that is first among equals and closest to the people: Congress.
Posted by: RattlerGator | June 21, 2018 at 11:22 AM
To use DoT's litmus test on whether this increases or decreases the size of government, this is a terrible decision.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM
sbw,
You are flat-out wrong on this, and I don't often disagree with you.
A third party calculator will COST MONEY to businesses!
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM
We don't know what Unicorn Rainbows might evolve until we tax something that is working for countless American entrepreneurs.
" Second, Quill creates rather than resolves market distortions.
"In effect, it is a judicially created tax shelter for businesses that limit
their physical presence in a State but sell their goods and services to the State’s consumers, something that has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced."
"The rule also produces an incentive to avoid physical presence in multiple States, affecting development that might be efficient or desirable. "
What incentive is there for:
SD state government to live within its means?
ALL of the states to live within their means--- including the pensions it's earmarking for short-term, mid-, and longer term encumbrance? Huh?
South Dakota to fire the "economic development" cord wood (and their pensions) that's not gotten with the times (like most of their kind), to figure out how to get a cut of the virtual economy that's obviously passing the state by to the tune of $60 million in lost tax revenue?
Are they saving up to build a bullet train?
the South Dakota "Dept. of Tourism" gets 40% of the gaming taxes and fees annually: how much of that is spent on printing glossy brochures that rot on display racks *IN SOUTH DAKOTA*?
it's a virtual world, baby. cut your COSTS like the rest of us.
Posted by: Kevlar Kid | June 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM
Local business has to factor in sales tax already. Online has not had to do so. Levels the playing field a bit.
Local business pays THEIR local sales tax. They know what that is, and how to pay it.
Small sellers like MM now will need to know the sales taxes for every city, county and state, and how to actually report to them and pay them.
It's a disaster of an opinion, written by people who don't have the slightest understanding of or concern for how people (the people who pay their salaries, by the way) make their livings.
Femall.
Posted by: James D. | June 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM
This was always an issue that should be dealt with in the branch that is first among equals and closest to the people: Congress.
Hopefully after the RINO herd is culled in November there will be enough stout hearted citizens in place to act responsibly.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM
RG,
It is obvious to me that the people who think this is no big deal have never run an on-line business. LOL!
Furthermore, this is going to hamper small bric-and-mortar businesses who want to augment their income with on-line sales. (This is how L.L. Bean got to be a big company - by caralog sales. If they were still just selling locally in Maine, they might have 50 employees tops.)
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM
I think Amazon, eBay and other on line platforms already have the algorithms in place down to ZIP Code.Otherwise, someone can sell this with a yearly subscription. Glad I have most of what I need. I bought my truck in Texas and CA still gets their slice. Having said that I still saved 8K. They sell more trucks in Texas than anywhere else on the planet.
Posted by: matt - deplore me if you must | June 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM
Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not the court.
oh have times changed.
Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2018 at 11:27 AM
No one agrees with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch?
Posted by: Extraneus | June 21, 2018 at 11:28 AM
South Dakota had a no-tax carve out for online companies, with no physical presence, that did less than $100,000 or less that 200 transactions per year(per wiki).
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 11:28 AM
the "taxation agents" better not be wearing red coats when they show up.
this is outrageous.
the "wild west" is no longer wild. fitting this comes from So. Dakota.
will look forward to the boom in book and flea market sales volume in SD. (/sarc)
Posted by: Kevlar Kid | June 21, 2018 at 11:29 AM
Local business has to factor in sales tax already. Online has not had to do so. Levels the playing field a bit.
That's how I read it.
I don't think there is any question that the rise of Amazon has damaged Main Street as well as reduced the amount of state sales tax revenue generated. How much has that reduction of state sales tax revenue made it harder for each state to meet their budgetary requirements?
I would much rather the state of Alabama have some extra tax revenue to support the citizens of Alabama than transfer that wealth to Jeff Bezos and give him and his Progtards more power.
Posted by: Tom R | June 21, 2018 at 11:30 AM
As far as Congress fixing this, the House Committee with jurisdiction is headed by Sensenbrenner (R-Brookfield WI). I have asked him to clean up the nexus mess under the commerce clause (ie the actual reason for the damn commerce clause) for the past 20 years. He's not going to do anything about it. Too much Chamber money backing things as they are (including this rotten Kennedy decision).
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 11:30 AM
No one agrees with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch?
Kennedy and Ginsburg?
;-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 11:30 AM
http://www.wyff4.com/article/koko-the-gorilla-who-knew-sign-language-dies-at-46-1/21746079
KOKO has died.
Posted by: Stephanie, Nene, Not your Normal Grandma | June 21, 2018 at 11:32 AM
I would much rather the state of Alabama have some extra tax revenue to support the citizens of Alabama than transfer that wealth
I feel the same about government pensions. If you won the retirement lottery in one state, your taxpayer funded check shouldn't be allowed to be spent in the don cheapo state you moved to.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 21, 2018 at 11:33 AM
A third party calculator will COST MONEY
Of course, but less than maintaining one yourself.
We already hire out USPS mailing list cleansing required to lower postal rates.
Posted by: sbw | June 21, 2018 at 11:36 AM
Too much Chamber money backing things
Now, there’s a thought.
Posted by: sbw | June 21, 2018 at 11:37 AM
Interesting word choice. Governments FREED to tax you the consumer more. Government. Free. To Tax. You more. You call yourself a business-news outlet?
https://twitter.com/KenShepherd/status/1009821135213662209
Posted by: henry | June 21, 2018 at 11:37 AM
Bloomberg is Mr potter, but much more innumerate, which I didn't think waa possible when it was BusinessWeek alone.
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM
Boa free to crush your larynx, like that crazy Kansas attorney general candidate.
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 11:41 AM
New talking points are out...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/21/abused-immigrant-children-allege-mistreatment-detention-center/720773002/
Posted by: Stephanie, Nene, Not your Normal Grandma | June 21, 2018 at 11:44 AM
Lost in that article is that it happened under the Obama administration, Stephanie.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1009446623657721856.html
This is an excellent recap of what transpired in the hearing yesterday.
No wonder they went into the immigration hysteria.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 11:47 AM
No one agrees with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch?
Posted by: Extraneus | June 21, 2018 at 11:28 AM
They (it seems to me) are responding emotionally. Otherwise, they'd never initially be rolling with BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN. There's likely much more to this decision, and the majority of that "much more" is a deference to states combined with a deference to Congress to address the issues that arise from this new technology.
That's the way it looks to me, at least.
And that U.S. Chamber of Commerce cabal will be taking a serious hit with the continuing disclosures of them working against average Americans.
Posted by: RattlerGator | June 21, 2018 at 11:48 AM
Part of Ben Carson's speech:
"...“In one group, a young lady stood up and she was very angry that it had taken the housing authority so long to find her a five-bedroom apartment because she had all these children and was even more angry because the dining room set had a scratch on the table..."
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/carson-real-compassion-is-tackling-perverse-incentives-that-continue-cycle-of-poverty/
Posted by: Davod | June 21, 2018 at 11:49 AM
A third party calculator will COST MONEY
Why wouldn't eBay offer it for free? If they don't, someone else will.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM
I should add, given the large and growing backlog, Team Trump had to know that a shift to 'zero-tolerance' would lead to the chaos currently in the news.
What led to the current situation is the left's constant need for agitprop and narrative change, considering none of these people save a few activists made a peep when Obama did the same thing.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 21, 2018 at 11:51 AM
Do we have to invade you again as with agincourt.
http://mobile.twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1009500254000074753
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 11:51 AM
SCOTUS announcement re taxes - The lawyer and accountant financial stabilization ruling.
Posted by: Davod | June 21, 2018 at 11:52 AM
eBay will offer the tax calculator for free or at a low rate. It has to, if it wants to stay alive.
Makes no sense for individual sellers to do it.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 21, 2018 at 11:56 AM
Amazon is already doing it for its individual sellers, isn't it?
PayPal and the other electronic wallet vendors might start offering it, too.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 21, 2018 at 11:57 AM
Too much Chamber money backing things
Now, there’s a thought.
I hope the clock is ticking for DJT to make them the deserving targets of his wrath.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | June 21, 2018 at 11:57 AM
sorry. the "mom and pop" lament is hogwash.
it's a shibboleth disproven daily by small market retailers, lawyers, restauranteurs, dentists, chiropractors, insurance agents, auto repair shops--- and a host of TINY companies with Super-sized sales revenues, all based on a profitable online enterprise for selling product, service, and expertise.
using a simple method to advance my business acumen (monkey see, monkey do) i've lost all sympathy for the "mom and pop" canard. they might be real people but they are really out to lunch. i don't care how cute they are, how salt they are... that is irrelevant. they are choosing to be buggy whips. not my problema.
regulating markets by courts sends us back to the dysfunctional public school classroom where instruction is geared to the slowest individual in the room.
how's that model been working for the last 3 generations?
taxation is identical.
my blood runs hot on this; so, in case anybody wants to comment on how i am "looking down my nose" at somebody, tell that to my 82 year old father-in-law who is using online to fill two restaurants in the Palm Springs area just about every night during the season.
AND he uses the same tools to be a favorite of year round locals, avoiding the label of "tourist trap". serves two markets and has, in less than 7 years, built a new dimension for his empire.
the old mom and pop restaurants are "envious" as to "how does he do it." he smiles and says "it's a long story."
he did what he had to do to CATCH up, and has KEPT up transforming his restaurants and his publishing company (founded in 1882) into DIGITAL MONSTERS.
btw, MM's ebay angle is a perfect example of how to avoid the "mom and pop" sarcophagus of American enterprise.
"mom and pop" are standing on "acres of diamonds" online sales taxes or not. Start diggin and don't stop until you find those gems hiding in plain sight. they are just 1mm away from success--- but it's more rewarding i guess to lament than to catch up and stay caught up.
Posted by: Kevlar Kid | June 21, 2018 at 11:59 AM
PayPal is the other company that is doing well for other reasons.
Posted by: Narciso | June 21, 2018 at 11:59 AM
"deference to states combined with a deference to Congress to address the issues that arise from this new technology"
Plausible. Maybe "taxation without representation" is not an actual constitutional restraint and without something like that the conservatives had "no choice" but to defer.
Posted by: boris | June 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM
Extraneus,
eBay is a business, too. In fact, it's traded as a stock on Wall Street.
Of course they can offer it to their sellers. How much do you think that will cost? Who is going to assume that cost? Hint: not the corporation. It would probably be offered as an added service for a fee OR rolled into seller's fees with no opt-out option. Probably the latter, as allowing an opt out would cause more confusion.
Then, is eBay going to pay the taxes, or will each seller be notified of the taxes he owed and where to mail the checks?
Mass confusion and I still say this is a terrible decision.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | June 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM
What led to the current situation is the left's constant need for agitprop and narrative change, considering none of these people save a few activists made a peep when Obama did the same thing.
Even if they opened their ignorant yaps, the MFM froze them out so the word was spread only on loon outlets like Radio Pacifica.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | June 21, 2018 at 12:01 PM
CH, I keep telling the local Chamber to kick the National in the shins at every chance.
They are the private equivalent of regulatory capture.
Posted by: sbw | June 21, 2018 at 12:02 PM
So what do you guys think about Susan Rice telling Obama's cyber security team to "Stand down" on Russia, in 2016?
Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2018 at 12:07 PM