Santorum is a shithead. Sun also rises in east.

[NurseCarmen]

Brick. Bookmark this reply. I am in total agreement with you.

I even, after consideration, agree that the education thing is more nuance, and if someone tried to fight against that because my pal is in Iraq, and his wife and kids are renting down in Alabama so they can be close to not just him when he comes back, but also other families of the MN Nat’l G, etc. etc. If he had his kids use the cyber school, that would be pretty much the same in my eyes.

I just ask for one admission from you. Santorum is an idiot for using this very same topic as an attack against Walgren, then leaving himself wide open for the same attack with a vacant house.

[NurseCarmen]

Oh. And Diogenes. My buddy in the MnNtlGd with a wife in kids in AL is a Roseville, MN resident. And he’s a raving Liberal. You don’t want to lose his vote. Roseville is fucked up enough as it is.

[Bricker]

@NurseCarmen

Brick. Bookmark this reply. I am in total agreement with you.

I even, after consideration, agree that the education thing is more nuance, and if someone tried to fight against that because my pal is in Iraq, and his wife and kids are renting down in Alabama so they can be close to not just him when he comes back, but also other families of the MN Nat’l G, etc. etc. If he had his kids use the cyber school, that would be pretty much the same in my eyes.

I just ask for one admission from you. Santorum is an idiot for using this very same topic as an attack against Walgren, then leaving himself wide open for the same attack with a vacant house.

Yes, he’s an idiot for that reason – and that’s hardly the only reason, either.

[Bricker]

@jayjay

I don’t know. I’m a big defender of the contention that Bricker is possibly the single most misunderstood poster on this board (and I type that with zero sarcasm, irony or insinuation). I don’t know that he so much personally sympathizes with Santorum (or the Bush administration) as that he just has an ironclad standard of proof of wrongdoing. In other words, my hypothesis is that Bricker is so fair-minded about accusations of illegal or unethical behavior that it LOOKS like he’s personally touting the persons so accused. However, what he’s actually doing is defending someone against accusations that are backed by what he sees as flimsy evidence or possibly inferential evidence.

Thank you.

I noticed, when I was defending Rep. Kennedy after his Ambien-driving episode, a welcoming attitude from the same “side” that now seems to be throwing up accusations of partisanship at me. To my way of thinking, I’m simply applying the same principles of analysis across the board. And I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your noticing and acknowledging that.

[Siege]

Bricker, please try and understand something. Penn Hills is a suburb about 10 miles from downtown Pittsburgh. The story about Santorum’s residence in Penn Hills received quite a bit of media coverage at the time, includin several articles in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The editorial Hentor linked to, which I read in print yesterday morning reflects the frustration I feel about this issue. It’s been hashed and rehashed and all of a sudden you pop up, saying, in effect, “Show me more proof!”

All right, here are three articles from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the subject:
link
lnk
link
and and an opinion piece from the Philadelphia Inquirer which contains a review of the matter.

I’ve can give you more links if you insist; in fact, I’ve got Google up on this issue as I type. On the other hand, while I have thought I’d rather enjoy being a researcher for a law firm, there were other things I was planning on doing with my holiday weekend. Guinastasia, Hentor, would either of you be willing to lend a hand, or at least a couple of fingers?

I’ve nothing against Republican Senators or Republicans in general; I’ve got a great deal of respect for Arlen Spectre, the other Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, and I plan on voting for a Republican neighbor of mine who’s running for state representative this fall. Hell, I can even claim close friendship with one of the few Republican Wiccans in captivitity!

On this issue, however, and on others, I’m afraid I consider Mr. Santorum to be a hypocite, holding others to standards he either does not hold himself to or which, for reasons he has not taken into consideration, are not capable of doing so. I’m thinking of him telling people who couldn’t buy flood insurance that they should have bought it after some flooding a couple of years ago.

This particular matter has been argued and reargued many times in my fair city. Santorum does have his staunch defenders here, and no doubt a letter from one of them will be in the newspaper which landed on my door while I was typing this. After going through the back and forth several months ago, I’m afraid reading you treat it as if it were unsettled and unsubstantiated allegations is rather frustrating.

Have a nice weekend, folks, and Hentor, thanks for linking to that editorial!

[Acsenray]

@Siege

On this issue, however, and on others, I’m afraid I consider Mr. Santorum to be a hypocite

It seems to me that Bricker has conceded this possibility, like when he said:

@Bricker

Now, is it hypocritical?

Maybe.

…

Now, if Santorum has changed his mind on the value of physically domiciling himself in Pennsylvania, then he’s not hypocritical. If he has, however, then as an act of intellectual honesty, he should take pains to make that change known. In the absence of such an admission, I agree that an observer is entitled to conclude, as a working hypothesis, that he is hypocritical.

[jayjay]

@Bricker

And I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your noticing and acknowledging that.

Rick, ever since your change of mind when presented with more evidence and testimony on the same-sex marriage issue a year or so ago convinced me of your bona fides, I always have.

[Guinastasia]

@danceswithcats

I’m with jayjay on this one. Bricker brings the same mindset to these boards as he does to the courtroom, e.g. what says the law? Although he and I disagree on some points, I have to respect the man’s position.

Wow. This is The Pit. Somebody say fuck, already!

Fuck, already!

Yeah, I guess I was a bit unfair. I guess it’s just like Siege pointed out, that this has been all over the news here in Steel Town, so some of us are a bit tired of it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@jayjay

Bricker is possibly the single most misunderstood poster on this board

And possibly the single most obtusely misunderstanding poster, as well. How many people have tried to carefully explain that the issue is not Santorum’s *Virginia * residency but his *Pennsylvania * residency? Has he acknowledged yet that *that * is the problem? I haven’t seen it. But that’s typical; once he decides what the question is, it takes multiple threads and unnecessary loads of personal abuse to get him to see otherwise. Meanwhile, what could have been a more useful discussion about the proper resolution of a matter is simply a hijack into getting him to understand the fucking problem. This is just the latest example of many.

However, what he’s actually doing is defending someone against accusations that are backed by what he sees as flimsy evidence or possibly inferential evidence.

And all that’s fine in a *real * court. But, once again, this is politics. The court of public opnion. The rules are different. Bricker seems to find it almost personally offensive that the world of politics doesn’t operate under court rules. But it doesn’t.

But let’s humor him for a bit. What *are * the Pennsylvania legal residency requirements? On what basis do you make your flat judgement that Santorum meets them, even on the narrow legal rules-of-court grounds you insist on, Bricker? Will you once again try to change the subject to Virginia law and continue the hijack?

[Guinastasia]

ElvisL1ves, oh, I think Bricker understands it perfectly. However, I think he argues like he DOESN’T understand out of a habit, after years of being a defense attourney. That’s all.

[kaylasdad99]

@ElvisL1ves

But let’s humor him for a bit. What *are * the Pennsylvania legal residency requirements? On what basis do you make your flat judgement that Santorum meets them, even on the narrow legal rules-of-court grounds you insist on, Bricker? Will you once again try to change the subject to Virginia law and continue the hijack?

I can’t answer as to the requirements to satisfy legal residency in PA. But the fact that Senator Fecalfoam has not been successfully challenged on the issue in the many years that he has been in the senate suggests that he meets them. Perhaps merely by the skin of his teeth, but Bricker is probably in pretty safe territory by asking that affirmative evidence be presented that Santorum doesn’t meet them before concluding that he doesn’t.

As he said above, he’s satisfied by “pinky swear” to demonstrate intent to return the Santorum underwear drawer to Pennsylvania, and it’s up to the challengers to furnish proof that the law demands something more substantive.

[Guinastasia]

Actually, I believe it was ruled that he owes the school in back tuition.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@ElvisL1ves

But let’s humor him for a bit. What *are * the Pennsylvania legal residency requirements?

I don’t know. But I can say that residency often has multiple definitions for tax and other purposes. The rules also vary by state.

On what basis do you make your flat judgement that Santorum meets them, even on the narrow legal rules-of-court grounds you insist on, Bricker?

I wondered the same thing.

I see a lot of flat assertions of some tricky aspects of the law - without substantiation. Run of the mill blowhard stuff.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Anyway, it appears that Santorum is not a resident for Pennsylvania tax purposes (except for PA wages, etc).

WARNING PDF: http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/lib/revenue/rev-611.pdf

Individuals who have their domicile or statutory residence
in Pennsylvania are subject to the PA Personal Income
Tax on their income from all sources. …

Individuals who do not have either their domicile or statutory
residence in Pennsylvania are taxed only on the
income from sources within Pennsylvania …

Santorum has no domicile in PA:
“Domicile refers to the place where a person maintains his or her permanent abode, and where he or she intends to return whenever absent. A person may only have one place of domicile at a time.”

Santorum has no statutory residence in PA:
“Statutory residence refers to the place where an individual spends the most time during the taxable year. More specialized definitions, however, apply when the person… has frequent or prolonged absences from his/her place of residence.”

“A person is a statutory resident of Pennsylvania unless meeting these conditions:
• A person who spends a total of more than 181 days
(midnight to midnight) of the taxable year outside of
Pennsylvania is not a statutory resident of Pennsylvania.”

---

I do not know whether Santorum pays taxes in PA. These residency rules do not apply to school funding. (Though I find it amusing that this should even be an issue.)

I’m only substantiating my surprise that Bricker was familiar enough with Pennsylvania residency law to make such categorical statements. Unless, of course he’s just another blowhard.

[Measure_for_Measure]

By some criteria, Santorum is the best Senator in Washington. No other senator pulled in more money from lobbyists during the 1998-2004 era.

Rick knows a lot of people and a lot of people know him. So it’s not surprising that two of his former staff members are world class champions at obtaining earmarks from their former mentors.

A small circle of former staffers to Santorum and Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) have, in turn, made earmarks their business, acting as the middlemen between clients and Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation in winning more than $100 million in appropriations since 2001, according to public records, interviews and analysis by The Inquirer.

Non profits are involved too. Earmark recipient The Urban Family Council apparently participated in a Santorum-supported get out the vote drive. That’s a nonprofit no-no.

Still, Santorum is nothing but principled. On March 8th, he stood proudly on the Senate floor and implored his colleagues to stop taking private flights subsidized by Corporations. Oddly enough that was two days after he, “had taken a BellSouth plane from a runway near his home in Leesburg, Va., to fund-raising events in North Carolina and South Carolina.”

I pine for the good old days, when shame made hypocrites less blatant.

[Acsenray]

@Measure for Measure

Anyway, it appears that Santorum is not a resident for Pennsylvania tax purposes (except for PA wages, etc).

You’ve set out some statutes, but you don’t apply them to the facts.

Santorum has no domicile in PA

This conclusion is almost certainly wrong.

Domicile refers to the place where a person maintains his or her permanent abode,

His permanent abode is the vacant house in Penn Hills.

and where he or she intends to return whenever absent.

Note that the operative word here is “intends.” The first stop in judging intent is to ask him. Surely, his own words reveal that his intent is that his domicile is in Pennsylvania. Once that has been established, you can try to rebut his claim, but it’s not going to be easy. You have at least two big facts against you here: (1) He owns a residence in Pennsylvania, and (2) He is a member of Congress and his legal residence or domicile (the two terms are most often synonyms) is in the state he is elected to represent.

A person may only have one place of domicile at a time."

And his one domicile is in Pennsylvania.

Santorum has no statutory residence in PA

I don’t know whether this is a correct conclusion. However, just as with the previous statute, it is of marginal relevance. Santorum is a member of Congress. His legal residence is defined by federal law. That trumps anything Pennsylvania law might have to say about it.

I’m only substantiating my surprise that Bricker was familiar enough with Pennsylvania residency law to make such categorical statements.

As I said before, Pennsylvania residency law is of limited relevance with regard to a member of Congress.

@ElvisL1ves

How many people have tried to carefully explain that the issue is not Santorum’s Virginia residency but his Pennsylvania residency?

This statement doesn’t make much sense to me. Under the common law, a person can have only one domicile. That principle is reflected in the Pennsylvania statute as quoted. Unless there are some other contenders that have not be put on the table yet, there are only two possibilities in Santorum’s case: Pennsylvania or Virginia.

Here is the Virginia Department of Taxation’s rule on the residence of members of Congress:

The term “resident” does not include any member of the United States Congress who is domiciled in another State. Even if a congressman actually lives in Virginia, he or she will not be considered a resident for tax purposes. Members of Congress are subject to Virginia income tax as nonresidents only on income received from Virginia sources (see NONRESIDENTS). These provisions do not apply to spouses, other family members, or congressional staff members. Those individuals are subject to the same residency and filing requirements as all other persons living in Virginia (see VIRGINIA RESIDENTS, PART-YEAR RESIDENTS and NONRESIDENTS).

Of course, as I said before, Virginia tax law is only marginally relevant, because this is a federal matter. However, Virginia’s rule is probably just an implementation of this federal statute (4 U.S.C. Sec. 113):

(a) No State, or political subdivision thereof, in which a Member
of Congress maintains a place of abode for purposes of attending
sessions of Congress may, for purposes of any income tax (as
defined in section 110(c) of this title) levied by such State or
political subdivision thereof -
(1) treat such Member as a resident or domiciliary of such
State or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) treat any compensation paid by the United States to such
Member as income for services performed within, or from sources
within, such State or political subdivision thereof,
unless such Member represents such State or a district in such
State.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a) -
(1) the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ includes the delegates from
the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico; and
(2) the term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia.

[Bricker]

@Measure for Measure

Anyway, it appears that Santorum is not a resident for Pennsylvania tax purposes (except for PA wages, etc).

ascenray effectively rebuts this nonsense. There’s no reason for me to post anything but a note that I agree with each point he made refuting you.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

ascenray effectively rebuts this nonsense. There’s no reason for me to post anything but a note that I agree with each point he made refuting you.

I’m interested in the fact that federal law automatically “trumps” state law. Could you please cite the oft-referred to statute, regulation, law or whatever it is that says that congressmen and women are automatically considered to be residents of the place they’re representing, even if they don’t really live there?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@acsenray

This conclusion is almost certainly wrong.

His permanent abode is the vacant house in Penn Hills.

Is this a joke? His permanent abode is a vacant house? Even he has made statements that they don’t even stay there when they visit the in-laws for holidays.

Note that the operative word here is “intends.” The first stop in judging intent is to ask him. Surely, his own words reveal that his intent is that his domicile is in Pennsylvania.

Gee, he’d have no motivation to lie. Like, wanting to be a Senator from Pennsylvania.

And his one domicile is in Pennsylvania.

Re-read what **Measure for Measure provided. His Penn Hills home cannot meet the definition of domicile laid out by Pennsylvania. His domicile is by that definition his Virginia residence.

Look, all this is just a lot of fun, trying to pretend that the law is cut and dried when there is actually very little that has been offered on the definition of residency for a Senator from Virginia representing Pennsylvania. I would suspect that nobody has been such a clear cocksucker about it until Senator Man on Dog fled PA.

The bottom line is that he can go fuck himself, and that’s what we voters of Pennsylvania will tell him in November. You can fucking have him, if Bricker will give him up.

[ElvisL1ves]

@acsenray

Surely, his own words reveal that his intent is that his domicile is in Pennsylvania.

If you believe what he says at face value (and I hope you know better than to say you do). But the physical evidence all belies that claim, doesn’t it?

(1) He owns a residence in Pennsylvania, .

He owns a house in PA. There is no evidence that it is actually a residence, is there?

and (2) He is a member of Congress and his legal residence or domicile (the two terms are most often synonyms) is in the state he is elected to represent.

Working backward from the desired conclusion.

This statement doesn’t make much sense to me.

Perhaps because you’re laboring under the same misimpression that Bricker is, that anybody actually gives a flying fuck about his *Virginia * house. That isn’t the fucking issue, amigo. He isn’t representing Virginia, claiming to Virginia voters to be a Virginian. He’s representing Pennsylvania, claiming to Pennsylvania voters to be a Pennsylvania resident, when the only evidence to support that claim is a claim that he intends to move there someday. Maybe. After he’s out of the Senate and it doesn’t matter anymore, that is.

Does that help the problem make sense to you now? Or do you wish to extend Bricker’s hijack? You’re better than that, or so I’ve thought.