Attorney General Marty Jackley Issues Statement on Oral Arguments in Tax Fairness Case
PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley issues the following statement after oral arguments were heard this morning by the United States Supreme Court in South Dakota’s challenge to Quill decision in tax fairness case.
“Today I stood before the United States Supreme Court fighting for South Dakotans and to give our main street businesses an equal playing field with out-of-state companies. South Dakota is not asking for any new tax or asking out-of-state retailers to do more than what our local businesses do every day. “
-30-
It will be interesting to listen to the tape of this …thank you for fighting for us Marty!
You mean fighting for Pierre. Not sure the average South Dakotan will enjoy paying higher taxes just because they’re 100 miles from a Walmart
More money for the state of SD thanks to the taxpayers. Enough already. And you call yourself a conservative?
Marty had no business arguing this case and should have let someone with more experience handle it. Typical political grandstanding at the expense of the client (SD). This is what we’ve come to expect from him.
1) Marty is South Dakota’s Attorney General and was the state’s chief Federal Prosecutor. He is immenently qualified to argue this case.
2) I hope Marty loses the case. This issue should be dealt with by Congress. It is their Constitutional prerogative to regulate trade amongst and between the states.
Wow, never seen someone get upset at an elected official for actually doing their job. Might I ask who you think is more qualified than the Attorney General with over a decade of prosecutorial experience at the federal and state level?
Or perhaps you’re just sour grapes because your boss couldnt get it out of committee in D.C.
Marty has every right to argue the case; whether he should have done so is another story. I think he let his ego get in the way because he thought he could get some political mileage out of it – hence the multiple campaign videos he recorded on the steps of the Supreme Court building (still unsure about the ethics of doing election stuff on govt property).
Anyway I just finished the transcript and read through the state tax professionals’ takes on twitter/blogs. It’s pretty clear Marty should’ve let a professional handle that.
what qualifies you to make that judgement?
Two eyes and a brain.
Just read this Wall Street Journal reporter’s take:
https://twitter.com/RichardRubinDC/status/986316032108388353
Clearly the Court was unswayed by Jackley’s arguments. He lost them at the beginning and never got them back.
1.) Rubins take In no way supports your claim. In fact, he says “justices struggled with compelling facts from both sides.” Additionally, he states that “congress has known about this issue for 26 years and has not acted. How should the court interpret that inaction?” You’re clearly reading your own bias into those tweets.
2.) if your surprised by Sotomayors aggressive interrupting, you’ve clearly never studied this Court.
3.) if all it takes is two eyes and a brain, let the record show that you have been judged and found lacking.
Hey that’s fine, Jason – I know you are trying to make this the centerpiece of your campaign and it stings to know that, come June 25, you’re going to get a big fat REMAND from scotus
Not Jason, but I take that as a compliment. Typical Washington D.C. deflection though, I guess if you get called out and can’t win on the facts, resort to that.
Run along now, you can sit at the big kid table when you bring a big kid argument!
And the knowledge of how to correctly spell “judgment.”
He should have let his Deputy run this pony.
Maybe oral arguments should only be done via Twitter accounts…. With intermittent amicus comments…..
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/supreme-court-justices-signal-divide-on-internet-sales-taxes
I read the transcript. Marty had barely gotten to the podium before the justices started tearing him apart. He was clearly out of his depth. Lots of retailers are biting their nails tonight, wondering if they made Marty allow SD’s counsel of record argue it instead.
should have made*
It is clear you know nothing about Sonia Sotomayor or how she operates on the bench
It is VERY COMMON practice at SCOTUS to get your first breath, paragraph out and then the Justice start questioning….this is how it happens.
They are arguably the best lawyers from ivy league school, with the best clerks that have prepped them…they are there to ask questions and probe the strong and weak points and many times they have questions to make their colleagues think about it a different way, not just the person they are questioning…
you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want, but the fact of the matter is that Jackley got outclassed. I spoke to a few retailer types who attended oral arguments yesterday. They told me they went in confident and left thinking it was a jump ball.
Marty was making a political argument about Congress rather than a constitutional argument, and it didn’t seem to sit well with the justices.
For the record, this all could have and should have been fixed by an act of Congress. They have had 26 years to do something. If only the state of South Dakota voted and elected someone to represent their interests there!
What are you saying?………Hahahahahahahaha
An oral argument at the Supreme Court is nothing like a criminal prosecution. Marty’s experience as a lawyer didn’t prepare him for this, and he was clearly out of his depth.
It’s rare for a state AG to argue at the Supreme Court:
http://www.naag.org/publications/nagtri-journal/volume-2-issue-4/who-argues-for-the-states-in-the-u.s.-supreme-court.php
And for good reason.
This is yet another example of Marty using the legal system for his own political gain, just like the debacle in Flandreau. It’s shameful.
Your continued refusal to elaborate on how he was “clearly out of his depth” exposes you for what you truly are.
Contrary to your beliefs, South Dakotans are smart enough to see right through your logical long jumping and empty-headed rhetoric. Shame on you.
Oh no this totally isn’t political at all. It’s not like he shot a campaign commercial on the steps of the Supreme Court building.
OH WAIT.
A very intriguing case…we have heard a lot about the SD side. Interesting to hear the arguments on the other side.
I read the transcript and found it interesting.
Also not a traditional ideological case…it will be interesting to see how it comes out.
Agreed, John. My hunch is, regardless of how the case is decided, its impact will be underwhelming. Internet shopping is downright convenient, and consumers who like that convenience won’t get into the car to drive to a store because of sales tax.
I sell clothes with my wife for a living. Retail has changed dramatically, because consumers’ choices have changed first. Fiddling with sales taxes laws won’t make anything more fair.
P.S. My wife strongly disagrees with my outlook. Good for her!
Its not uncommon for Attorney General’s to argue cases in SCOTUS. Janklow argued one as AG and one as Governor. Tellinghusen also argued a case there. I can’t remember if Meirhenry did or not. If a South Dakota case is before SCOTUS our AGs have always represented the state. It is what they are paid to do. That’s why it is important to elect competent lawyers as AG.