A lot of Conservatives see church and charity as a better form of redistribution than the government. We believe the government was never supposed to be a charitable organization that redistributes income to the needy. If everyone gave to their church like Mitt does, we would not NEED the huge government redistributive programs. He does it the right way, imo.
But to be fair to Mitt, he does pay about 2 Million a year in taxes (about 7 Million to church/charity). You are thinking about Harry Reid's lies:
“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”
You have taken something Harry Reid said that he was not certain about and tried to present it as truth. Big no-no to quote liars. You lose credibility.
Wow! How did so many commie/anti-constitutionalists get elected via the DNC/Dems?
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
MORE
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen...-restructuring
This will make it more susceptible to politics .
Have 9, 15, or 35 justices and nothing changes. Unless they form panels like district courts. What happens when a very progressive policy is being adjudicated in front of a panel of 5 constitutionalists? The libbies will want the rules changed again.