Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How can people be ok with this?
I wonder how many people were reported to "Attack Watch" for calling this a tax. I hope the have health ins because I suspect they are on the top of the IRS audit list.
How can people be ok with this?
It was not ruled constitutional it was ruled a tax
Let us not quibble like a liberal.
If it's a tax, said the SCOTUS Majority, then it is Constitutional.
They held that the terminology used explicitly BY Congress wasn't controlling. So they DECLARED the penalty to be, instead, a "tax."
Thus, it was ruled as being allegedly Constitutional.
But it does raise a couple (at least) of interesting questions:
If it is a tax, why did the anti-injunction law not prohibit even hearing the case yet? Because, they intoned, it's not THAT kind of tax!
And if it's a tax, why is any part of the Act Constitutional when it originated in the SENATE, not the House, as the Constitution demands of tax bills? SCOTUS didn't even bother to answer that one.
All I will say is obamacare is no longer healthcare but a massive tax and the government has been given the go ahead to tax anything it wants too. The reason Roberts rules it is a tax because many of the sections had tax verbiage in it.
Devils' advocate here. According to some pundits, Roberts's CONSERVATIVE principles include judicial restraint. What he basically said is "This may be a piece of shit. Our job is not to determine if it is a piece of shit. Our job is to determine if it is constitutional. Congress has the power to tax. If you don't like the tax, replace Congress."
Charles Payne suggested that Roberts was "crazy like a fox". I tend to agree.
No... it doesn't mean that. Idiots.
I just joke about that because every time something happens that is good for the conservatives, they always speak about how it's some sort of mandate against liberalism and that things will never go right again for the democrats.
THIS IS AMERICA PEOPLE. WE FLIP FLOP LIKE CRAZY. Obama being elected never meant there wouldn't be another Bush. And if Obama loses, it doesn't mean there won't be a president soon more liberal than him(which is of course not all that liberal. Left of our previous ones yeah, but that's for a whole other thread).
You can't believe in political mandates in this country. It'll only hurt you as you get way too cocky for your own good.
God Bless America!!!
ABC News Special Report: Upheld Mandate
under tax law provision :: like flood insurance
6-3 decision
Does anyone remember our president claiming his mandate was not a tax? Well the truth is now made obvious- the president lied the people were screwed. This can actually be used against democrats now. They lied- all of them that signed onto this. It is an unpopular bill- always has been. As to the "Constitutional Scholar" claim? If he was so spectacular they'd have upheld the mandate as was written- they did not.
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - ABC News
You dumb shit, it's a fee to those who don't have, but can afford health insurance. They're the only ones who have to pay. Are you really this stupid?
Just another NWO Global Elite rig-job. Roberts a Conservative? Once again, the joke's on us the People. What a scam.
I hear ya. Of course Congress and the POTUS lied when they said it wasn't a tax. But how many of us on the right argued that it was?
Devils' advocate here. According to some pundits, Roberts's CONSERVATIVE principles include judicial restraint. What he basically said is "This may be a piece of shit. Our job is not to determine if it is a piece of shit. Our job is to determine if it is constitutional. Congress has the power to tax. If you don't like the tax, replace Congress."
Charles Payne suggested that Roberts was "crazy like a fox". I tend to agree.
I would agree IF the ObamaCare Law had been passed AS a tax.
But it deliberately was not.
Congress itself labeled it a "penalty." They had previously contemplated calling it a tax, but rejected that option. And their rejection was VERY deliberate. It was no oversight and not a "mistake."
It is NOT for the SCOTUS to alter the WORDS chosen by Congress to force fit a required "finding" into one of their opinions in order to "salvage" a law. The CHOICE made BY Congress should have been scrupulously honored. Instead, CJ Roberts is GUILTY himself of blatant activism by re-writing the legislation and by straining to "interpret" clear words which required no interpretation. That aint exactly "conservative."
If he had to strain and bend and twist like a damn pretzel to reach such a conclusion, as Roberts did, then that SHOULD have been a clue that he had strayed FAR off the reservation. And if it WERE a "tax" despite the carefully chosen words of Congress, then why was it allowed to stand when it was an apportioned tax, why was it allowed to stand when it originated in the fucking Senate and why did the Court reach ANY decision on it when the anti-injunction law forbids such a thing until someone has PAID that tax (which, obviously, nobody yet has or could have)?
A fully dishonest "opinion" by the CJ. Absolutely shameful.
Devils' advocate here. According to some pundits, Roberts's CONSERVATIVE principles include judicial restraint. What he basically said is "This may be a piece of shit. Our job is not to determine if it is a piece of shit. Our job is to determine if it is constitutional. Congress has the power to tax. If you don't like the tax, replace Congress."
Charles Payne suggested that Roberts was "crazy like a fox". I tend to agree.
I would agree IF the ObamaCare Law had been passed AS a tax.
But it deliberately was not.
Congress itself labeled it a "penalty." They had previously contemplated calling it a tax, but rejected that option. And their rejection was VERY deliberate. It was no oversight and not a "mistake."
It is NOT for the SCOTUS to alter the WORDS chosen by Congress to force fit a required "finding" into one of their opinions in order to "salvage" a law. The CHOICE made BY Congress should have been scrupulously honored. Instead, CJ Roberts is GUILTY himself of blatant activism by re-writing the legislation and by straining to "interpret" clear words which required no interpretation. That aint exactly "conservative."
If he had to strain and bend and twist like a damn pretzel to reach such a conclusion, as Roberts did, then that SHOULD have been a clue that he had strayed FAR off the reservation. And if it WERE a "tax" despite the carefully chosen words of Congress, then why was it allowed to stand when it was an apportioned tax, why was it allowed to stand when it originated in the fucking Senate and why did the Court reach ANY decision on it when the anti-injunction law forbids such a thing until someone has PAID that tax (which, obviously, nobody yet has or could have)?
A fully dishonest "opinion" by the CJ. Absolutely shameful.
Have you read the opinion?
I would agree IF the ObamaCare Law had been passed AS a tax.
But it deliberately was not.
Congress itself labeled it a "penalty." They had previously contemplated calling it a tax, but rejected that option. And their rejection was VERY deliberate. It was no oversight and not a "mistake."
It is NOT for the SCOTUS to alter the WORDS chosen by Congress to force fit a required "finding" into one of their opinions in order to "salvage" a law. The CHOICE made BY Congress should have been scrupulously honored. Instead, CJ Roberts is GUILTY himself of blatant activism by re-writing the legislation and by straining to "interpret" clear words which required no interpretation. That aint exactly "conservative."
If he had to strain and bend and twist like a damn pretzel to reach such a conclusion, as Roberts did, then that SHOULD have been a clue that he had strayed FAR off the reservation. And if it WERE a "tax" despite the carefully chosen words of Congress, then why was it allowed to stand when it was an apportioned tax, why was it allowed to stand when it originated in the fucking Senate and why did the Court reach ANY decision on it when the anti-injunction law forbids such a thing until someone has PAID that tax (which, obviously, nobody yet has or could have)?
A fully dishonest "opinion" by the CJ. Absolutely shameful.
Have you read the opinion?
Have you?
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts did right in saving Obamacare - NY Daily News
Have you read the opinion?
Have you?
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts did right in saving Obamacare - NY Daily News
Of course not, the entire thing (all opinions) is almost 200 pages long.
If you could tell me on which page it is that they change the words of the law, that'd be great.
Devils' advocate here. According to some pundits, Roberts's CONSERVATIVE principles include judicial restraint. What he basically said is "This may be a piece of shit. Our job is not to determine if it is a piece of shit. Our job is to determine if it is constitutional. Congress has the power to tax. If you don't like the tax, replace Congress."
Charles Payne suggested that Roberts was "crazy like a fox". I tend to agree.
Of course not, the entire thing (all opinions) is almost 200 pages long.
If you could tell me on which page it is that they change the words of the law, that'd be great.
Well what in the fuck are you bitch at liability for?
