The Second Day of Arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States concerned the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a Federal Law. This Case has nothing to do with the Right of Homosexuals (or Lesbians, or Transgendereds) to marry, rather, it was an Appeal from a Case called United States v. Windsor, a Case of a Lesbian Couple married in Canada but who lived in the United States. Edith Windsor's Lesbian Spouse died and Windsor was faced with an Inheritance Tax on which the Internal Revenue Service refused to apply the Marital Exemption. Windsor had married someone named Thea Clara Speyer in 2007. Unfortunately for Windsor, Speyer was not poor and she also died Two Years after the Canadian „Marriage” thus exposing Windsor to a $ 360,000 Inheritance Tax Bill.
Windsor's Lawsuit and Appeals were based centrally, if not solely on this Ground: $ 360,000. Windsor got, obviously, a substantial Inheritance from Speyer, even after paying the Federal Inheritance Tax which, it must be noted, has been in Effect, until very recently, at Rates much, much lower than previously.
However, that appears to have been of little Consolation to Edith Windsor who wanted it all, meaning, the $ 360,000 which would have fallen under the Federal Inheritance Marital Exemption as well.
The Arguments by Donald Verilli, Solicitor General, arguing against himself (and the United States) and former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing, „on Paper” on Behalf of Congress, were varied. The Supreme Court even appointed another Lawyer, Vicki Jackson, a Harvard Law Professor, to argue whether the Court even had Jurisdiction on the Case. Ms. Windsor's own Lawyer argued for the Money.
So, the Bottom Line on the Case, for Ms. Windsor, anyways, distills down to the $ 360,000 and Sum which she may have easily spent on Lawyers so far and which may not recover (plus, likely, the $ 360,000 Inheritance Tax), unless she prevails, which she well may.
There is an Issue of Public Policy, however, which was not argued before the Court and which could not be argued, that being, in this Era of Crises where Loopholes in various Federal Tax Laws are being questioned, paramount amongst them, the Federal Inheritance Tax Loopholes, whether the overall Process of the Interest of the Nation is being pushed forward through the Inclusion of more People into the Loophole.
It seems the Case regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, United States v. Windsor, is basically about Money, in an Æra when the Federal Government should be (as it was) looking for every possible Source of Revenue, where consideration should be given to contracting rather than enlarging, Federal Revenue Gaps and Loopholes.
Windsor's Lawsuit and Appeals were based centrally, if not solely on this Ground: $ 360,000. Windsor got, obviously, a substantial Inheritance from Speyer, even after paying the Federal Inheritance Tax which, it must be noted, has been in Effect, until very recently, at Rates much, much lower than previously.
However, that appears to have been of little Consolation to Edith Windsor who wanted it all, meaning, the $ 360,000 which would have fallen under the Federal Inheritance Marital Exemption as well.
The Arguments by Donald Verilli, Solicitor General, arguing against himself (and the United States) and former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing, „on Paper” on Behalf of Congress, were varied. The Supreme Court even appointed another Lawyer, Vicki Jackson, a Harvard Law Professor, to argue whether the Court even had Jurisdiction on the Case. Ms. Windsor's own Lawyer argued for the Money.
So, the Bottom Line on the Case, for Ms. Windsor, anyways, distills down to the $ 360,000 and Sum which she may have easily spent on Lawyers so far and which may not recover (plus, likely, the $ 360,000 Inheritance Tax), unless she prevails, which she well may.
There is an Issue of Public Policy, however, which was not argued before the Court and which could not be argued, that being, in this Era of Crises where Loopholes in various Federal Tax Laws are being questioned, paramount amongst them, the Federal Inheritance Tax Loopholes, whether the overall Process of the Interest of the Nation is being pushed forward through the Inclusion of more People into the Loophole.
It seems the Case regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, United States v. Windsor, is basically about Money, in an Æra when the Federal Government should be (as it was) looking for every possible Source of Revenue, where consideration should be given to contracting rather than enlarging, Federal Revenue Gaps and Loopholes.
