The Stealth Hippopotamus: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: It's estimated that one to three justices will retire, so you're right on that front. No hard evidence as of yet, but it's assumed that he's going to get a couple more picks. However there is evidence that he would pick liberal justices, considering he's had two picks already and they were more like Ginsburg than Scalia.

Scalia is going to wait to see how 2014 turns out but either way he's out after that.

Just my guess only

If Scalia retires, I expect Thomas to retire immediately afterward due to no longer knowing how to rule.

halfof33: My recollection is that the US Supreme Court invalidated the IRS's audit procedures

sovereign citizen!!

jso2897: halfof33: There appears to be a profound misunderstanding about what the First Amendment says.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which interferes with the free exercise and the power to regulate what is said from the Pulpit also interferes with the freedom of speech.

So, if any tax is levied on anybody, their right to free speech is being abridged? I mean, the last time I checked, I'm free to say or print or paint or sing whatever I want. But I still have to pay my taxes. Are you saying I have no freedom of speech because I have to pay taxes?
Now, if the government offered me a special deal, like churches get, where I didn't have to pay taxes if I agreed to restrict my speech in certain ways, I would either reject the deal, or, if I accepted it, I'd honor it.

Face palm. You are conflating two points. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have explained that if you exercise the freedom of speech from the pulpit, you may be subject to a punitive action, I.e taxation. That is a concern.

Black Churches will mysteriously not be included in a successful lawsuit.

/Welcome to Sarajevo

So does this mean that the "reverends" like Jackson and Sharpton will finally have to shut the fark up? Or does this apply only to religious figures who generally oppose liberalism as incompatible with church doctrine?

Black churches have been used as political platforms and tools for years and years and now suddenly people have a problem with electioneering by religious groups.

Careful FFR, your liberal is showing. Do not become yet another one sided partisan tool like NOW and NAACP.

There appears to be a profound misunderstanding about what the First Amendment says.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which interferes with the free exercise and the power to regulate what is said from the Pulpit also interferes with the freedom of speech.

So...religious organizations aren't allowed to voice their opinion? Freedom of speech is being attacked. Sorry if you don't like it. It's ok for everyone to have an opinion except churches. But the LGBT can endorse Obama. Doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech. Protected political speech, specifically.

Mort_Q: No-one is saying they don't have the right to speak or endorse candidates. That is their right. It's just that doing so means they have to give up their tax-exempt status.

So you don't get freedom of speech unless you pay taxes?

LasersHurt: peeledpeas: I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a function of human rights. The individuals who make up the church are free to speak as they wish.

The church, itself, is a non-human entity and should be appropriately dealt with under the law.

Right. I'm sure there are no non-religious non-profits engaging in electioneering.

/rollseyes

I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.

We need a 2nd Amendment solution to this 1st Amendment problem.

TrollingForColumbine: My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church.

Why is your Israeli wife voting in an American election?

hugram: Delawheredad: hugram

The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about

So you are in favor of selective enforcement.

Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.

For the record, I'm an atheist so I would have no problem if every church lost their exempt status, but I understand a lot of churches do good things. I'm not pushing for all of them to lose their exempt status... just the ones that violate the IRS rule.

Having said that, I wish the IRS would go after a church... any church that broke the rule. They have not gone after anybody, and that's an issue many people have, including me.

Ideally, I would like the IRS to go after all churches that broke the law, but one would be a great start.

That's the crux of the entire question. Can the government, bound by the First Amendment, revoke a legal status due to political speech or action? I think such an action would be unconstitutional.

If an issue is at odds with the principles or teachings of a church, they can and should be able to preach about them, *regardless* that it is a political issue as well. And yes, even if preaching means an ad in a newspaper. They're not talking about big oil, global warming or taxes from the pulpit, the abortion and marriage debates are important religious issues.

Threatening a church with loosing tax-exempt status is a road we do *not* want to go down, people. Seperation of church an state goes both ways. Why is it that people only get their feathers in a ruffle when they perceive the church is extending its reach. You should fear the government far, far more.

the power to tax is the power to destroy.

here's your chance you godless heathens.
are your little gay weiners hard yet?
don't answer that.

To be fair, this is more a matter of discretion than one of favoritism. The IRS tends to focus on cases where a large quantity of government revenue lies in the difference between what an organization should be paying and what it is paying. If we're talking megachurch pastors, sure, that's worth an auditor's time and revoking the exemption, but most of the offending churches are two-bit operations that don't make a profit anyhow, really.

I mean, by making them deal with real business paperwork and shiat you're punishing them for being douchebags and petty criminals, but it won't actually get the government any more money, really, and in a budget shortfall I kind of expect them to prioritize money.

Dimensio: If Scalia retires, I expect Thomas to retire immediately afterward due to no longer knowing how to rule.

I think his knees can jerk pretty well on their own.

I couldn't find it online last time I looked - I wish I could, it was great - but once upon a time the NY Times had an interesting graphic showing how each appointment changed the court's balance. The replacement of Thurgood Marshall with Thomas was the biggest ideological swing of the SCOTUS from one appointment, ever.

I've predicted that he'll resign for health reasons after it's discovered he'd slipped into a diabetic coma while hearing cases, something which absolutely no one will notice while it's happening.

Freedom of Speech.

Protected political speech, specifically.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Doesn't matter. Even if a church ran the most transparently political campaign in history, the IRS wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole. You want to see the "war on religion" rhetoric amp up to eleven? You remove the tax exempt status of even one church, and you will see old people of all races rioting as fast as their Rascal scooters will let them. It would make the Tea Party seem like a fond memory with how much derp it would create.

That's why the IRS is perfect. Everyone already hates and fears them. They're not the agency America wants, but they just might be the agency America deserves.

One of the reasons we have so many storefront churches is because snake oil salesmen want to fleece the public and not pay taxes on the money they take. They went from selling bad patent medicines to telling Bible stories and other fairy tales to the gullible while passing a basket around.

If they did enforce the tax laws, a lot of these ramshackle institutions would wink out like candles on a child's birthday cake.

My church consists of Religious Humanists----we don't do God, Jesus, BELIEFS or The Bible. Its called uua.org. Yes, we do social justice but not election-lobbying. We love Teh Gheys

Dusk-You-n-Me

Already got a guilty conscience. Might as well have the money too.


Good day to you now.

Oblig

Religious folks believe and act upon ridiculous beliefs which have no physical evidence or scientific proof - isn't that punishment enough?