Supreme Court. Individual mandate

[JakeStarkey]

Roberts opined differently than what the far right and or the libertarians thought was constitutional.

It is what it is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, yeah! That's what this is all about.

Whiners, the lot of you.

Yeah, we'd whine even if Dear Leader dictated that brand new ropes be used as we are hung....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think Roberts felt compelled to strain himself to TRY to save the Act out of the basic notions of Constitutional construction of Congressional acts: “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648. But the operative word is "reasonable." And he paid far too little attention to how UNREASONABLE it is to call the "penalty" a tax for that purpose when the fucking legislators saw fit to call it a penalty themselves. And they DID SO FOR A REASON.

The dissent was completely correct. Roberts screwed the pooch.

your thinking is unreasonable.

Roberts is teh conservative who paid too much attention. The others ignored reason here

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama said it was not a tax, and SCOTUS said he was wrong.

The taxing portion of the mandate survives, and ACA is constitutional.

Well no, it isn't. But the SCOTUS threw out the constitution, so no worries.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FNC - the whole ACA has been upheld as constitutional. It is not a mandate and in that capacity it falls under the commerce clause but it is upheld as a tax or by "congress's power to tax"

There is where the debate will center, leading up to the election.

yeah right.

Obamacare vs Romneycare: no difference.

I understand; you don't recognize the difference between state action (which can be changed) and federal dominance (which cannot).

Dominance?

Federal power can and has been changed by the people. The USA is a republic. We have representation.

You just don't happen to like what your fellow citizens have put into power.

 

[mudwhistle]

There is a penalty . . . they're just calling it a tax now.

Here's the thing..

It's not enforced.

It's almost on the honor system.



And this what was the Conservative crusade.

To undermine the Obama administration.

Well..shot down in flames.

Are you saying we don't have to purchase insurance? Then why have the mandate and why are we calling it a mandate.

They argued that it wasn't a tax. It is a tax.

Figure a $125 per week tax increase for those making around $30k a year or less.

 

[Liability]

In a Depression.

This needs to be Romney's bullhorn moment! He needs to drive home the need to repeal this "tax" that was passed by our president. A tax that was lied about.

except ROmney passed the same tax on Massachusetts residents. ANd there is copy/tape of him taking credit for it

A STATE is not constrained in the way the Constitution purposefully limits the FEDERAL Leviathan.

 

[Liability]

The best part (in my view) of the actual dissent is found in THESE words:

II
The Taxing Power
As far as §5000A is concerned, we would stop there. Congress has attempted to regulate beyond the scope of its Commerce Clause authority,4 and §5000A is therefore invalid. The Government contends, however, as expressed in the caption to Part II of its brief, that “THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS INDEPENDENTLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS’S TAXING POWER.” Petitioners’ Minimum Coverage Brief 52. The phrase “independently authorized” suggests the existence of a creature never hitherto seen in the United States Reports: A penalty for constitutional purposes that is also a tax for constitutional purposes. In all our cases the two are mutually exclusive. The provision challenged under the Constitution is either a penalty or else a tax. Of course in many cases what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was im- posed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for constitutional purposes, both.5 The two are mutually exclusive. Thus, what the Government’s caption should have read was “ALTERNATIVELY, THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A MANDATE-WITH-PENALTY BUT A TAX.” It is important to bear this in mind in evaluating the tax argument of the Government and of those who support it: The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so.
In answering that question we must, if “fairly possible,” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. “‘“[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .” or judicially rewriting it.’” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 841 (1986) (quoting Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515 (1964), in turn quoting Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 211 (1961)). In this case, there is simply no way, “without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used,” Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 269 (1884), to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty.

Exactly right. Roberts' called the penalty a "tax" DESPITE what Congress itself called that penalty.

And accordingly, it was not a valid exercise of Congressional TAXING power for two reasons. It wasn't a tax at all and it certainly was NEVER properly apportioned.

maybe you should just march down to Washington and straighten all the Justices out with your brilliant analysis?

The FOUR jurists in the actual dissent already did, stupid. I was quoting them, you derp.

That doesn't work if, for some absurd reason, the other folks are not concerned with listening or adhering to the meaning of words.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not upset about this.

Now Obama can't play the victim and he has nowhere to hide.

Next up.....letting the Bush tax-cuts expire.

 

[Liability]

Here's the thing..

It's not enforced.

It's almost on the honor system.



And this what was the Conservative crusade.

To undermine the Obama administration.

Well..shot down in flames.

Are you saying we don't have to purchase insurance? Then why have the mandate and why are we calling it a mandate.

They argued that it wasn't a tax. It is a tax.

Figure a $125 per week tax increase for those making around $30k a year or less.

They argued both sides. They were AFRAID to call it a tax because if it's a tax, then why did it not get apportioned as required by the Constitution?

But they wanted to ALSO call it a tax on the theory that if it is a tax it makes the Act Constitutional as coming within their Constitutional taxing authority.

THEY called it a penalty which is collected by the IRS and is therefore "in that limited sense" a tax (but not "really a "tax"). I think Whoopie might say it's not a tax tax.

Justice Whoopie Goldberg delivered the Opinion of the Court.

 

[paulitician]

Clearly another NWO Global Elite decision. Congrats America, Big Brother now owns your body. Many really are going to regret celebrating this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the funniest thing about all this is that the individual mandate was originally a Republican concept widely embraced by Republicans.

The funniest thing about that claim is it is not true.

It the mandate had actually been widely embraced by Republicans it would have passed back when Clinton was president. There were Republicans who embraced it, but most rejected it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The best part (in my view) of the actual dissent is found in THESE words:



Exactly right. Roberts' called the penalty a "tax" DESPITE what Congress itself called that penalty.

And accordingly, it was not a valid exercise of Congressional TAXING power for two reasons. It wasn't a tax at all and it certainly was NEVER properly apportioned.

maybe you should just march down to Washington and straighten all the Justices out with your brilliant analysis?

The FOUR jurists in the actual dissent already did, stupid. I was quoting them, you derp.

That doesn't work if, for some absurd reason, the other folks are not concerned with listening or adhering to the meaning of words.

you're quoting the losers?

figures

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Roberts opined differently than what the far right and or the libertarians thought was constitutional.

It is what it is.

Let me get this straight.

The far right and libertarians saying that the mandate is not valid under the commerce clause, and Roberts ruling from the bench today that the mandate is not valid under the commerce clause, is him disagreeing with them.

Want to try that again?

 

[paulitician]

So the Mandate is a 'Tax?' This Supreme Court decision is awful. It's so muddled. Forcing Citizens to purchase Health Insurance by way of Fine or 'Tax', is wrong and Un-American. Shame on this Supreme Court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This needs to be Romney's bullhorn moment! He needs to drive home the need to repeal this "tax" that was passed by our president. A tax that was lied about.

except ROmney passed the same tax on Massachusetts residents. ANd there is copy/tape of him taking credit for it

A STATE is not constrained in the way the Constitution purposefully limits the FEDERAL Leviathan.

but what is teh difference?

teh

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama said it was not a tax, and SCOTUS said he was wrong.

The taxing portion of the mandate survives, and ACA is constitutional.

Well no, it isn't. But the SCOTUS threw out the constitution, so no worries.

In your minority opinion only.

I am so happy you get to participate in our social compact in America.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow. I am really surprised.

Good thing you don't want to make any money as a doctor.

Absurd. Supply and demand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the Mandate is a 'Tax?' This Supreme Court decision is awful. It's so muddled. Forcing Citizens to purchase Health Insurance by way of Fine or 'Tax', is wrong and Un-American. Shame on this Supreme Court.

Paulitician, Roberts said no to a "mandate" but that Congress can tax people for this.

 

[paulitician]

A truly wonderful day for Big Brother. But a truly terrible day for America. Big Brother is absolutely ecstatic Citizens just handed them more control of their lives. Oh the poor sheep, they know not what they do. So sad.