Amazon Cuts Off Illinois Affiliates

Technically, the Supreme Court cannot make an error,
as there is no higher court to rule it an error.
Kinda like papal infallibility.
But the Supreme Court has later reversed a number of its own decisions.

And there are Supreme Court decisions with which I disagree.
While my own opinion is not changed by the court's decision,
that decison is not an error.

For comparison, President Eisenhower disagreed with the Supreme Court decision
regarding school desegregation, but sent the army to enforce it.
He would not have done so if the decision were, in fact, an error.

If you have the authority to regard a Supreme Court decision as an error,
you must either guard that authority by force--resort to fascism--
or grant it to everyone--descending into anarchy.

And I'm sorry to be diffcult,
but did you even glance at Justice Kenendy's majority opinion?

I particularly liked his conclusion:

When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. See Smoodin, “Compulsory” Viewing for Every Citizen: Mr. Smith and the Rhetoric of Reception, 35 Cinema Journal 3, 19, and n. 52 (Winter 1996) (citing Mr. Smith Riles Washington, Time, Oct. 30, 1939, p. 49); Nugent, Capra’s Capitol Offense, N. Y. Times, Oct. 29, 1939, p. X5. Under Austin , though, officials could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.

Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(A)(i). Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.

Here's a link to a somewhat more detailed article regarding Amazon's actions in response to the new Illinois tax-collection law:

http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/2011/03/10/illinois-governor-signs-amazon-internet-sales-tax-law/

But wait, there's more: http://www.illinoispreppersnetwork.com/2010/12/illinois-internet-sales-tax.html

For those who don't want to click, there's a newish line in the Illinois tax papers for an estimate of "use taxes" you would have paid if you hadn't bought anything from out of state via travel, internet or catalog.

It's voluntary now, but I suspect that if they had a way to enforce it, they would. You can't leave it blank. They expect you to write a 0 in it.

Mhm.

Not only would they enforce it,
if they find a way to verify the figure,
they'd prosecute for tax fraud/evasion.