Today in Supreme Court History: August 14, 1935

8/14/1935: President Roosevelt signs into law the Social Security Act of 1935. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this law in Helvering v. Davis (1937).

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

American Trucking Ass’ns v. Gray, 483 U.S. 1306 (decided August 14, 1987): Blackmun upholds injunction creating escrow for extra taxes paid by truckers who were challenging a new highway equalization tax on Dormant Commerce Clause grounds; Arkansas insisted on collecting taxes anyway, so escrow would keep the extra funds out of the state’s pocket (I remember those stickers saying, “This truck pays $20,000 a year in highway taxes” . . . I wonder if anyone wrote under that “and causes $50,000 a year in wear and tear”) (the truckers ultimately won, sub nom. American Trucking Ass’ns v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 1990)

McDaniel v. Sanchez, 448 U.S. 1318 (decided August 14, 1980): Powell stays order requiring county officials to proceed with “preclearance” procedure (the now-illusory §5 of the Voting Rights Act) for new apportionment plan; says Court must decide whether the plan, already approved by the District Court, is “legislative” (requiring preclearance) or “judicial” (not) (the Court ultimately held that the District Court should not have ruled on the plan; it should have been submitted directly to the Attorney General, 452 U.S. 130, 1981)

Stickel v. United States, 76 S.Ct. 1067 (decided August 14, 1956): Harlan denies continuance of bail pending cert approval because cert petition argues a point which appeared only in dicta in the lower court’s decision (trial judge erroneously applied preponderance instead of reasonable doubt standard in denying motion to acquit, but conviction affirmed on grounds that denial was proper even under reasonable doubt standard)

[Krayt]

“This truck pays $20,000 a year in highway taxes” . . . I wonder if anyone wrote under that “and causes $50,000 a year in wear and tear”

If The People help pay for roads for personal driving around, how much more beneficial to keep the trade routes open. That is the benefit to them. A massive benefit.

The idea trucks are doing something squirrely to sneakily get away with something is rhetorical hackery. Both sides benefit in the transactions of shipped goods. It is artificial to lay that all on one side.

[Magister]

But if the trucks paid for the wear on the roads for their use, then they could ultimately pass it on to consumers as with other expenses (by charging whoever hires them to move stuff more, who in turn will pass on those costs). In that way, consumers would see the costs reflected in the prices they pay, and market forces could have a chance of moving them to buy cheaper local products.

[Mark Regan]

Steward Machine v. Davis, 301 U.S. 545 (1937), and Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke, 301 U.S. 495 (1937), upheld as constitutional the unemployment compensation parts of the Social Security Act. Justice Sutherland's separate opinion in Steward Machine makes clear that although the Social Security Act's state plan conditions sections, such as old-age assistance, had not been challenged, they were also constitutional.

[Dan Schiavetta]

today’s movie review: The Nun’s Story, 1959

This was one of the “Catholic movies” we were supposed to see — like The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima 1952, and Joan of Arc, 1948 (after we’d outgrown The Bells of St. Mary’s, 1944). Audrey Hepburn as a medically ambitious nun whose progress keeps getting thwarted by assignments where she can’t use what she’s learned.

It’s supposed to be a lesson to her in humility, which she fails to meet, giving up her vows in the end in what is supposed to shame, but which really should be exasperation in the face of administrative stupidity. And the movie is one lesson after another in “doormat theology”. I saw some of this mentality in the South when I worked in a domestic violence shelter. “Jesus could withstand this abuse, therefore I should be able to also . . . ” For centuries the Church has taught that we should welcome suffering, and saints (particularly female ones) are even celebrated for forgiving their tormentors. If the Hepburn character had been raped, we could be sure that she would not press charges, and that after a night of prayer, she would forgive the rapist, and thank Jesus for allowing her to suffer for His sake. Only one step past that is “Thank you Jesus, for allowing Father O’Brien to anally rape me after basketball practice . . . ” which is a mentality I encountered years later, as a lawyer defending the Catholic Church in such cases where abuse by a priest was not reported even after it happened again and again. Some of the priest witnesses I dealt with (who were accused of looking the other way) and even some of the Church’s lawyers were clearly victims of abuse in the past, some admitting it and some not. And never reported. They figured it was a “cross they had to bear”.

Back to nuns . . . Both as a crisis center worker and as a lawyer I got to know a number of nuns and fortunately for them (and for the people they help) they were not the doormats in this movie. In fact due to the shortage of priests it is now nuns (as “Pastoral Assistants”) who run some parishes, and it is their job to be assertive, and most are very good at it. The overextended priests, covering three or more parishes, rush in to perform sacraments like Mass, marriages and baptisms, but it’s the P.A. who is the real pastor, which only further exposes the stupidity of the Church’s insistence that only men can hold the keys to Heaven (Matt 16:18).

I once defended a cloistered community (in a run-of-the-mill slip-and-fall case) and our witness had been an elementary school principal. Why did she choose the cloistered life? She said it was thrilling to give oneself up so completely to the Lord. I can understand that, I suppose (one can’t judge things like that) but she was not going to be slapped around at deposition, and she wasn’t. This was one strong lady. Between her and the Lord was one thing, but between her and the world was another.

Fortunately some progress is being made, though as usual the Church has to be bludgeoned into it. The worst part of The Nun’s Story is when the Hepburn character, having studied hard for a nursing exam, is told by her superior to deliberately flunk it (as a sign of humility, of course). I don’t think the Church would accept that kind of instruction today.

[Syd Henderson]

My favorite religious movies are The Passion of Joan of Arc (did you ever get any silent movies?) and The Song of Bernadette. In the latter a vivacious young woman witnesses a miracle and all the Church can thing to do is send her to a nunnery for the rest of her life. And of course Monty Python’s the Life of Brian.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Forgot to mention Song of Bernadette, thanks.

No we didn’t see any silent movies. I’m sure there were a few good “Catholic” ones.

I also read the book (Song of Bernadette), though it was a Reader’s Digest Condensed version (remember those)? The book was written by a Jew! It’s realistic about the heroine (at one point Bernadette scoops up what she thinks is water given to her from the B.V.M. whereas to the folks around her she’s just scraping up mud) while also honoring her sincere faith as to what seems impossible (which has counterparts in the Old Testament). Also it’s told partly through the eyes of a nun who reminds me in a way of Salieri in Amadeus. She practices self-denial (e.g., she puts a ripe peach by her bedside, fighting her terrible desire to eat it, then in the morning gives it to a child) and yet it’s that undisciplined young girl who gets gifted with the beatific vision.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t think the Church would accept that kind of instruction today."

Nor would it then. You do realize this is a work of fiction?

You ought to get some therapy about your Catholic trauma.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s based closely on a book written by a nun and was hailed as factually accurate.

[Bob from Ohio]

The church sent her to nursing school and then wanted her to fail. Why would they do this?

Have you ever heard of a book or movie "based on a true story" that was 100% accurate? Of course not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Church does a lot of stupid and irrational things. Trust me, I know.

[Magister]

I hope that Nuns on the Run or Sister Act eventually made you feel better about nuns in movies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The problem with The Nun's Story is not about the nuns but how they are misused. "Obedience to idiocy" seemed to be their marching orders.

As far as I know there has yet to be a movie about a nun who is a fully fleshed out character. To be fair to the movie I reviewed, the Hepburn character is a rare non-stereotypical portrayal (but then again, she ends up giving up her vows).

[Magister]

Do priests really fare much better in movies? It seems they're usually bland feel-good stereotypes, or they're ditching their vow of celibacy, or occasionally they're exorcists or vampire hunters (which I've never seen nuns in movies get to do).

[Dan Schiavetta]

That is true.

I was about to make the same statement about priests as I did about nuns but the reputation of priests in general has been so tarnished lately that it’s not the same thing.

The most fully realized priest character that I can think of on screen was a female one, created by Dawn French in “The Vicar of Dibley”.

[PeteRR]

SS is the greatest and most destructive Ponzi scheme in US history.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and like all Ponzi schemes it is reaching the point where it is about to collapse.

[Dan Schiavetta]

All they have to do is eliminate the payroll tax cap. But that would mean increasing taxes on the rich, so it's off the table.

[Krayt]

That doesn’t un-Ponzi it, though. In Ponzi terms, you’re making the investors pay wayyyyyyy the hell more than they’ll ever get out of it.

Also, weren't you complaining just a few posts above about truckers, benefitting from the program of government roads, not paying the full costs of their use? "But SS is different, it's to the benefit of society as a whole...ohhhhhhhhhh."

[Dan Schiavetta]

1. There’s no Ponzi here.

2. What you’re saying is that Social Security is, in effect, the current, working generation supporting the generation that’s retired. I’m ok with that. Aren’t you?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and when "the current working generation" is too small to support "the generation that's retired" what then?

[Krayt]

That is exactly what it is, legally welfare, the transfer of money from current taxpayers to current recipients.

Which is a Ponzi scheme. It was sold to the American people as you pay in while working, then get money out during retirement.

With a few hiccups, they even vary what you get based on what you put in, your “investment”.

You wish to shift the goalpost via changing the definition so it’s just another general taxation program. Thank you for admitting it.

Still doesn’t un-Ponzi it.

An honest poli…hhehehe…an honest politician would say, “It’s a Ponzi scheme and it has been all along. The financial difficulties it experiences are why Ponzi schemes are illegal.

“We’re gonna un-Ponzi it by jumping in with both feet into what made Ponzi schemes illegal, and grapple that and say so what! Now some will not get back anything near what they contribute. We knew this would happen for many decades, and, because we are congenital liars, defrauded you when we could have lessened the impact.

But that might make you un-elect us, then how would we graft? Think, voter man!

[Krayt]

“Of course, we created the “lock box” of Social Security funding, starting in the 1990s, increasing the tax to build up a bulge of money in preparation for the baby boom generation. This way we can avoid cuts, or borrowing it, or increasing taxes.

“But we didn’t shove it into a mattress. We loaned it to ourselves.

“Now that it is time to pull out of it — holy shit! We are even further from a balanced budget than in the 1990s.

“I guess we’re gonna have to borrow it anyway! What a waste of time!

“Oh, and increase taxes, as well, anyway, because we have to un-Ponzi it by surgically attaching Ponzi’s fraud to the general funding. Joke’s on you!”

“But whatever you do, don’t fire us for this massive, poorly-planned cockup. We don’t wanna lose our jobs because then our investment savant spouses will suddenly have strokes or something, and we value their fine minds just as they are.”

[Sarcastr0]

You know? I don't really know if it was sold honestly in the 1940s. I also don't much care. People nowadays think of it like captcrisis says, and broadly support it.

It's not a Ponzi scheme, because they payout is not at the Ponzi level. You should look up what the two things you are comparing actually do.

[Magister]

That is exactly what it is, legally welfare, the transfer of money from current taxpayers to current recipients.

Every government program transfers money from taxpayers to some recipients; just because you don't want or like what was paid for doesn't make it welfare.

Which is a Ponzi scheme. It was sold to the American people as you pay in while working, then get money out during retirement.

A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud where there is no underlying economic activity from which the profits are derived, but it is made to appear so by using new investment funds. A fraud requires that somebody deceives someone in order to profit.

The Social Security Act was passed by elected representatives and expanded in various ways over the past 88 years; there was and is no deception about how it works as social insurance, and there is underling economic activity (i.e., all the economic activity subject to its tax). The Republicans have repeatedly attempted deception to damage it, but so far have failed.

[Magister]

The same is true of other forms of insurance, and Social Security provides significant insurance against disability or death of a breadwinner, and to some extent insurance against poverty in retirement.

[Mr. Bumble]

SS is not insurance.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Call it what you like. Old people (like my mother) depend on it and entrusting those funds to the gamblers on Wall Street is not an alternative.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It's a hell of a better gamble. I downloaded Dow Jones and S&P 500 averages, plus my SS "contributions" and ran them through a simple calculator. Assuming I had put those same "contributions" into simple DJ and S&P index mutual funds which were not taxed into oblivion (because my SS "contribution" weren't taxed), there would be enough in both that the DJ account would only have to withdraw 2% a year to match the SS retirement pay, and the S&P account would only have to withdraw 1%.

I ran simulations for every starting year possible, and the index funds outperformed SS every time.

SS is a terrible system. To brush off calling it the Ponzi scheme it is shows an economic ignorance you should be ashamed of.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I forgot — stocks never go down! The market never crashes!

[Mr. Bumble]

You sound like one of those morons who over withhold on their w-2s because they think it's smart to get a check from the IRS returning their own money and with no interest.

[Sarcastr0]

To brush off calling it the Ponzi scheme it is shows an economic ignorance you should be ashamed of.

You want to take a risk. You think it's a good risk. People disagree with you as to what risk we should tolerate as a society with respect to caring for our old and infirm.

You go off topic and accuse them of ignorance based on...stamping your foot.

Incredible arguing.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Do you ever think about what you respond to, or even read it?

I ran simulations for every starting year possible, and the index funds outperformed SS every time.

The index funds outperformed SS every single starting date for the full run.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. It works great *in theory*. Economic models yes, climate models no, eh?

Bush tried this. The American People told him no way.

I agree - black swan events are a real concern in this arena.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The "theory" you decry is actual past DJ and S&P 500 results.

You are incapable of arguing honestly.

[Nige]

Calling it a ponzi scheme is dumb Republican bullshit, they've been doing it for decades.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, you're right. In a Ponzi scheme you have to be convinced to buy in. With SS it's mandatory.

[Nige]

No-one will ever lose their SS money unless a bunch of politicians decide to wreck it to prove they were right that it's a ponzi scheme. You know what turned out to be a ponzi scheme? The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Complete scam. Defund the military. Obscene waste of taxpayer's money.

[Magister]

Bumble is cranky because there's no porn movie review today.

Survivors and disability are explicitly insurance, and the more common old-age benefits act like insurance. Like insurance, you don't get the payout if the event that is insured against doesn't happen.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Remind us why you are here, again?

[Magister]

Everybody's got to be somewhere. (But in particular the Monday Open Thread just vanished, possibly taking my comment with it, or I'd be there.) I am now curious as to what comment this was in reply to, or if it was just a freestanding inquiry.

[BrotherMovesOn]

That was directed at Bumble, not you Magister.
Unlike you he seems to be here for no apparent reason but to throw effeminate insults against practitioners.