Changes

Line 58: Line 58:  
I think we should at least clarify why [[Missouri v. Jenkins]] is on here.  As I mentioned in my edits to the case's article, the Supreme Court actually ruled that "The District Court abused its discretion in imposing the tax increase." ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0495_0033_ZS.html Source]).  I think that we should either take the case off here or explain that we're talking about the district court's ruling, not the Supreme Court's overturning.
 
I think we should at least clarify why [[Missouri v. Jenkins]] is on here.  As I mentioned in my edits to the case's article, the Supreme Court actually ruled that "The District Court abused its discretion in imposing the tax increase." ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0495_0033_ZS.html Source]).  I think that we should either take the case off here or explain that we're talking about the district court's ruling, not the Supreme Court's overturning.
 
-- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]]
 
-- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]]
 +
 +
:But I think the lower court ruling was largely upheld, as modified by the appellate court.  The case was in litigation for years and further discussion may be helpful.  But I looked at your link and it seemed to uphold the lower courts for the most part.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,482

edits