Skip to main content

The Supreme Court goes against type


On June 6, 2024 the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service.

This was an estate-tax issue arising in the context of closely-held corporations. Since that is already putting several of my readers to sleep, I will say only that the issue concerned a trick that controlling families sometimes use to retain their control of the corporation from one generation to the next. Let's ignore the particulars of that trick.

The point is: SCOTUS held unanimously against said trick. It is a decision that will likely lead in at least some instances to some dilution of the control of certain rich and powerful families over small-but-wealth-packed corporations. 

So SCOTUS ruled (1) in favor of the IRS and (2) against certain rich powerful families (3)  Unanimously (4) in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Who appointed these damned libs anyway? 

I have posted David Hume's image here to suggest that the above cited decision may be one of those black swans, defying "habit and custom".


Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltJune 15, 2024 at 11:18 AM

    Interesting. I have never respected Thomas. Thought his inlellect below Supreme Court qualifications, and did not agree with the earlier outcome of the Hill matter. Justice Thomas is an opportunist, going where ever the wind blows. There is where we find him now. I do not find his opinion egregious...only in line with current dogma, and fully predictable. Clarence was too silent for too long to be credible. That is symptomatic of systemic apathy. It gets no sympathy for me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more