Guest Rant Apr 10, 2023 at 9:00 am

The Capital Gains Ruling Proves It

Despite having that power, not a single judge wrote a separate, concurring opinion that promotes democracy and rejects the tyranny of a wealthy, reactionary minority. Washington Courts



This is the kind of post I find truly frightening. If you read the ruling by the Supreme Court it is pretty clear that is driven solely by ideology. The first few pages read like a script out of the progressive playbook. The fact that WA state is now the only state in the union that taxes capital gains as an excise tax instead of an income tax should tell you everything you need to know about how unorthodox the structure of this tax was and how the justices skewed the case law to make it work. The court is there as a backstop to the legislature to prevent them from making a mockery of the state constitution and usurping the voice of the people and rather than doing their duty they acquiesced because philosophically they agree with the legislature. This is wrong and bemoaning the fact that the court didn't go farther, especially from someone who is part of the legal system, is scary. If people can no longer rely on the courts to render judgements based on the legal framework we have in this state than the courts are nothing more than another political body and justice will only be provided to those who are aligned with the majority.

This issue isn't about the Supreme Court at all, this is about a legislature that is unable to garner the votes in their own chambers to create a constitutional amendment and convince the people of WA state that it is the right thing to do. Instead they pass flawed laws in the hopes the court will do their dirty work for them and allow them to find loopholes to collect even more revenue and unfortunately the courts granted their wish. If the author of this post thinks we need tax reform than they should point the blame where it belongs and stop advocating to undermine our judicial system.


"... nothing was more horrifying than voters attempting to claw back the ill-gotten gains of the obscenely wealthy."



As noted by other commenters, above, it turns out that trying to get the super-majority in both houses, plus a simple majority of voters, both of which are needed to amend the state’s constitution, is rather difficult if the object of such amending is to impose a tax those very same voters have persistently rejected. That’s actually how constitutional democracy ensures rule of law, and unsurprisingly, the Stranger hates this and tries to subvert it.

This is beginning to look like a left-wing version of the methods right-wingers use to eliminate reproductive freedom. Every anti-choice ballot measure, initiative, and referendum ever tried has failed. So court-packing, gerrymandering, and naked appeals to hatred (abortion of even a microscopic ball of cells is “baby-killing”) have been the anti-choice tools for decades.

@5: Speaking of naked appeals to hatred, one of the Bolshevik slogans was, “Loot the looters!” How’d that work out, long-term?


Every CPA I know is clucking and shaking their heads at this ruling. I remind them that an exodus of businesses and the affluent will have the same over all intended policy effect as collecting new tax revenue: driving down the cost of living for everyone. “Seattle has no culture” anyway, time to decamp for somewhere else - where to next?


So now Sheryl Gordon McCloud -- the author of the dissenting opinion criticized in this post -- is conservative? I'm old enough to remember The Stranger fawning over her as The True Progressive Candidate when she first ran.

It's bizarre that some people on the left have looked at the last 50 years of the conservative movement and decided that the way they do business is awesome and should be the model rather than the cautionary tale.


Great article by Austin Field about an institutional body that "lacks a strong progressive voice" from a guy that spent over 1.5 yrs. on an institutional body (as a Seattle Community Police Commission "police oversight" commissioner) that stifled progressive voices & the voices of those harmed by the SPD.
Don't usually quote the Bible, but "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?"


@Karl #11, You know what a university is, right?


Most Americans hope to have at least some wealth someday. Defining wealth as per se "ill-gotten" is not a winning argument.

And this court is quite progressive as courts go. How many state Courts would have issued the Blake decision voiding our drug possession law? I guarantee most would have found some technical ground to save the statute.


Sawant is looking for a job.... put her on the bench.

-- Her moderate views, on Equity, justice, diversity, wealth transfer from tax the rich to the masses,, down with capitalisms, etc. would be well received.

-- And she is impartial... Oh yes, I'm for her.

Also, we should consider Dan Strauss, here is a man who appears to do much, but accomplishes little. I like his approach ... groping for the middle way on any issue, which tends to actually leave things where they are... very stabilizing as nothing gets done or changes. .

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.