interesting article on supreme court and obama care

[KG1]

Everybody knew this was a tax. I can't see how BHO could keep a straight face when he contended it wasn't.

Exactly this. That's why the IRS was delegated to enforce the mandate. The Mandate is a Tax and always has been.

Taxation is used as a tool to control the masses. Why do you think there are no serious efforts to reform the tax codes?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly this. That's why the IRS was delegated to enforce the mandate. The Mandate is a Tax and always has been.

Taxation is used as a tool to control the masses. Why do you think there are no serious efforts to reform the tax codes?

I think most will recall, back during his 2008 campaign, BHO proposed a force equal to and as well equipped as the military to perform some sort of unspecified civilian duty...could this be to what he was referring?

 

[Mark 1911]

saw this article

not sure if the guy is full of it or not

what say you folks?

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius « White House 2012

jake

Interesting for sure. Knowing Roberts' history, its hard to believe he would just suddenly jump ship without a good reason. Time will tell. And regardless of how this goes down, remember that this case only addresses the legality of whether the government can force the people to buy something. There are more questions that have to be answered, many more lawsuits that have been filed in federal courts, some of them are bound to be heard by the Supreme Court. The battle is just beginning.

 

[miguel]

I don't buy into this. I'm seeing a number of these, "We lost the battle but will win the war because..."

To me, it's kinda like saying, "The bad news is my wife is screwing some guy...the good news is he's taught her a number of new positions!"

 

[jedi]

I don't buy into this. I'm seeing a number of these, "We lost the battle but will win the war because..."

To me, it's kinda like saying, "The bad news is my wife is screwing some guy...the good news is he's taught her a number of new positions!"

I'm still not sure on this whole ruling yet.

 

[Fargo]

I don't buy into this. I'm seeing a number of these, "We lost the battle but will win the war because..."

To me, it's kinda like saying, "The bad news is my wife is screwing some guy...the good news is he's taught her a number of new positions!"

I'm kinda torn on this one but there is one thing I'm certain of: we "lost the battle" back when the representatives and executive we elected passed this abomination. We can control them, we can't control the SCOTUS. Roberts is right that it is not the SCOTUS's job to protect the people from their poor electoral decisions, but rather to uphold the law.

I'm torn because I'm not so certain this is a tax and not a penalty. If it is a tax, then sadly it might be constitutional, at least under the current caselaw on the matter.

What I will say is that I don't believe John Roberts has jumped ship or become a liberal, or is about to birth satan's child. I have no doubt that he believes his opinion to be in accordance with his oath. I'm just no so sure he is right, but I concede he may be.

Best,


Joe

 

[rambone]

I don't buy into this. I'm seeing a number of these, "We lost the battle but will win the war because..."

To me, it's kinda like saying, "The bad news is my wife is screwing some guy...the good news is he's taught her a number of new positions!"

Yep. Its all spin. Not only should you forgive Roberts, but you should call him "brilliant."

 

[rambone]

Judge Napolitano: I Don’t Think He Made the Constitutional Decisionhttp://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/2...nt-think-he-made-the-constitutional-decision/

 

[g00n24]

BULLCRAP....This is a huge loss and nothing more. The fact that they ruled the commerce clause is what the commerce clause is doesn't matter one bit. If he would have ruled with the other 4 that would have been the result anyway AND the whole law would have been thrown out. Roberts is a spineless coward more concerned with looking partisan than reading the constitution.

 

[CarmelHP]

saw this article

not sure if the guy is full of it or not

what say you folks?

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius « White House 2012

jake

Makes no sense at all. If he found against ACA then what he wrote regarding the Commerce and Necessary and proper clause would be part of the holding instead of pages of dicta. He could have made good law on those and on the tax power by holding the tax power does not allow compulsion of a positive act. Instead he screwed the pooch on all points. He wanted to uphold the Act.

 

[jedi]

Judge Napolitano: I Don’t Think He Made the Constitutional Decision

Why does he still have the title of "judge" when he is a former judge?
Andrew Napolitano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that common title wise?
I know we say former president Bush/Clinton/etc...
But I don't think I have ever heard form judge abc?

Or is it like coach where players will call "coach" even afetr years of the coach being retired?

 

[jedi]

Makes no sense at all. If he found against ACA then what he wrote regarding the Commerce and Necessary and proper clause would be part of the holding instead of pages of dicta. He could have made good law on those and on the tax power by holding the tax power does not allow compulsion of a positive act. Instead he screwed the pooch on all points. He wanted to uphold the Act.

y?
he wants court's popularity to increase?
he really believes the law is legit?
something else?

 

[CarmelHP]

y?
he wants court's popularity to increase?
he really believes the law is legit?
something else?

Got me, whatever his reason, it sucks.

 

[KG1]

Makes no sense at all. If he found against ACA then what he wrote regarding the Commerce and Necessary and proper clause would be part of the holding instead of pages of dicta. He could have made good law on those and on the tax power by holding the tax power does not allow compulsion of a positive act. Instead he screwed the pooch on all points. He wanted to uphold the Act.

This is an interesting thought that begs the question, Can a tax be used as a punitive measure to compel compliance?

 

[hornadylnl]

y?
he wants court's popularity to increase?
he really believes the law is legit?
something else?

Because he's a member of the uni party. Vote Romney so he can nominate more like him.

 

[jedi]

Got me, whatever his reason, it sucks.

So what other suprises will he have in store for us in teh future I wonder?

Because he's a member of the uni party. Vote Romney so he can nominate more like him.

What the heck is the "uni party"?
I'm NOT voting for Rommey!

 

[hornadylnl]

So what other suprises will he have in store for us in teh future I wonder?



What the heck is the "uni party"?
I'm NOT voting for Rommey!

repubs and demos combined.

 

[88GT]

I'm kinda torn on this one but there is one thing I'm certain of: we "lost the battle" back when the representatives and executive we elected passed this abomination. We can control them, we can't control the SCOTUS. Roberts is right that it is not the SCOTUS's job to protect the people from their poor electoral decisions, but rather to uphold the law.

I'm torn because I'm not so certain this is a tax and not a penalty. If it is a tax, then sadly it might be constitutional, at least under the current caselaw on the matter.

What I will say is that I don't believe John Roberts has jumped ship or become a liberal, or is about to birth satan's child. I have no doubt that he believes his opinion to be in accordance with his oath. I'm just no so sure he is right, but I concede he may be.

Best,


Joe

This is the part where my knowledge base can't keep up with the discussion. Can you explain--or at least send me in the direction of a source that will as I realize this is probably more than just an average INGO post--the difference and why that difference is important in terms of practical consequences?

Thanks.

 

[jedi]

This is the part where my knowledge base can't keep up with the discussion. Can you explain--or at least send me in the direction of a source that will as I realize this is probably more than just an average INGO post--the difference and why that difference is important in terms of practical consequences?

Thanks.

me too please...
I know it's "'atty talk" but what's the difference for us lay people

 

[88GT]

This is an interesting thought that begs the question, Can a tax be used as a punitive measure to compel compliance?

And if so, is that not the functional equivalent of MANDATING behavior?

Seems to me that the answer to the question I pose has to be a resounding yes. And for the life of me I can't figure out how someone can say the individual mandate was struck as an actual legal mandate, but the tax on not getting insurance can still apply.

It was asked in another thread, but I haven't seen an answer: where in our history is another example of taxing people for NOT purchasing a product or NOT doing something? How do you tax the negative?