Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[thebluefood]

What CJ Roberts said is that for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, the label congress applies is dispositive. So if they call it a penalty and not a tax, the AIA does not apply. But for purposes of determining constitutionality, the Court is not bound by the label congress attaches to the term. Rather, they look to the substance of the regulation to determine whether it is a tax or a penalty. And Robert s believes it is a penaly (or command as he put it). But because reading it as a tax is "fairly possible" he felt constrained to construe it as a tax to save the statute from being held unconstitutional.

I see, and I'm beginning to understand where Justice Roberts is coming from. I'm glad he wrote the majority opinion on this case. While I don't particularly like the Individual Mandate, I am seeing the reasoning behind it and can understand the court's decision more clearly. I feel that Justice Roberts feels the same way (doesn't particularly like it, but sees the constitutionality behind it).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The last bit should be on everyones mind at all times.

We get the Govt, and the legislation, we deserve.

I look forward to the next SCOTUS nomination battle too.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 12:55 PM ----------

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices- Chief Justice John Roberts.

Yes, so how long until Roberts gets hit with the "liberal" tag by the far right?

When this lawsuit was first filed, I thought it was a joke. After hearing some of the conservative arguments, I thought it was a close call. But, i also thought that this was always a valid tax. I think Roberts wrestled with this decision but got it right.

The thing that is still annoying is Scalia's insistence that this is all so plainly obvious and unconstitutional. And I'm sure people will jump on Scalia's bandwagon and agree.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Tulane Skins Fan

[thebluefood]

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices- Chief Justice John Roberts.

That quote struck a huge chord with me, too.

[Kilmer17]

Yes, so how long until Roberts gets hit with the "liberal" tag by the far right?

When this lawsuit was first filed, I thought it was a joke. After hearing some of the conservative arguments, I thought it was a close call. But, i also thought that this was always a valid tax. I think Roberts wrestled with this decision but got it right.

The thing that is still annoying is Scalia's insistence that this is all so plainly obvious and unconstitutional. And I'm sure people will jump on Scalia's bandwagon and agree.

I think Roberts will take some heat, but he 1- Doesnt care. And 2- Understands the macro view of this (and all ) decisions.

I can disagree with him, but also understand ho whe came to his decision.

It will be a gas watching the far right nutbags go crazy and also fun watching the left wing nutbags walk back all of the nasty things they've been saying about him and the Court, over the last few months.

[Bliz]

The court ruled that for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act' date=' it is not a tax. But for purposes of Article I, Section 8, it is a tax.[/quote']

Did any of the justices rule that it is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act?

I have a bet from months ago riding on this...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

And since the Constitution trumps all other legal documents in the United States, its interpretation (or at least, the court's interpretation of the Constitution's interpretation) of the Individual Mandate is a tax and, therefore, legal, yes?

The Anti-Injunction Act piece does not go to the question of whether the Healthcare Act is legal or not. It goes to the question of whether the court is even in a position to decide if it's legal or not. Basically, the court looked to the Act itself and said, for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, this is NOT a tax. Basically, no person can challenge a tax in court. If you don't like your tax rate, you can't sue the federal government to lower it. Since Congress refused to call this a tax, the Court was not going to let them be cute and backdoor their way out of this suit all together. They were going to reach the actual issues.

Once we get to the issues, the Court then decided to determine what the "penalty" really was. There, they decided it was, in fact, a "tax." And therefore, permissable under the Constitution.

(By the way, this is kind of a terrible explanation, but I'm trying to make it as plain as possible while still being in the vicinity of the truth).

Edited June 28, 2012 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[mjah]

voters are really going to appreciate the GOP freaking out over this rather than the economy (and people aren't going to buy that this is a huge job killer, either).

Looking forward to House bill #666: Repeal The Job Killing Health Care Act Act.

[Baylor Alum]

Yes, so how long until Roberts gets hit with the "liberal" tag by the far right?

When this lawsuit was first filed, I thought it was a joke. After hearing some of the conservative arguments, I thought it was a close call. But, i also thought that this was always a valid tax. I think Roberts wrestled with this decision but got it right.

The thing that is still annoying is Scalia's insistence that this is all so plainly obvious and unconstitutional. And I'm sure people will jump on Scalia's bandwagon and agree.

The only thing I disagree with is that it is clearly a tax. To me, it could fairly be read as a command. "Buy insurance or else pay." It is not a surcharge on income or the purchase of goods or services which are the hallmarks of a tax. Rather it is a charge for merely existing without insurance. Semantics, I know. But it is a close call in my book.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Did any of the justices rule that it is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act?

No.

[thebluefood]

The Anti-Injunction Act piece does not go to the question of whether the Healthcare Act is legal or not. It goes to the question of whether the court is even in a position to decide if it's legal or not. Basically' date=' the court looked to the Act itself and said, for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, this is NOT a tax. Basically, no person can challenge a tax in court. If you don't like your tax rate, you can't sue the federal government to lower it. Since Congress refused to call this a tax, the Court was not going to let them be cute and backdoor their way out of this suit all together. They were going to reach the actual issues.

Once we get to the issues, the Court then decided to determine what the "penalty" really was. There, they decided it was, in fact, a "tax." And therefore, permissable under the Constitution.[/quote']

I see.

As I said in another post, though I don't particularly like this ruling, I can understand and respect it. Robert's decision was made with wisdom and proper legal perspective.

[Bliz]

The only thing I disagree with is that it is clearly a tax. To me, it could fairly be read as a command. "Buy insurance or else pay." It is not a surcharge on income or the purchase of goods or services which are the hallmarks of a tax. Rather it is a charge for merely existing without insurance. Semantics, I know. But it is a close call in my book.

There are taxes or tax breaks pertaining to whether or not you are married, have kids, own a house, and many other things that could be construed similarly.

[styx491]

How will they determine if you can or can't afford insurance?

[sacase]

There are taxes or tax breaks pertaining to whether or not you are married, have kids, own a house, and many other things that could be construed similarly.

I look at it like this. It's a tax on everyone. If you have insurance you are exempted from paying it. If you make below a certain income you are exempted from paying it.

[RVAbrendan]

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The Anti-Injunction Act piece does not go to the question of whether the Healthcare Act is legal or not. It goes to the question of whether the court is even in a position to decide if it's legal or not. Basically' date=' the court looked to the Act itself and said, for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, this is NOT a tax. Basically, no person can challenge a tax in court. If you don't like your tax rate, you can't sue the federal government to lower it. Since Congress refused to call this a tax, the Court was not going to let them be cute and backdoor their way out of this suit all together. They were going to reach the actual issues.

Once we get to the issues, the Court then decided to determine what the "penalty" really was. There, they decided it was, in fact, a "tax." And therefore, permissable under the Constitution.

(By the way, this is kind of a terrible explanation, but I'm trying to make it as plain as possible while still being in the vicinity of the truth).[/quote']

Let's be honest, the judges all ruled it wasn't a tax under the AIA because they wanted to just deal with the question now instead of in 2 more years. If they ruled it was a tax under the AIA, then it just pushed back the deadline. So, they ruled it wasnt a tax under the AIA so they could get to the meat of the argument now instead of later.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 01:15 PM ----------

The only thing I disagree with is that it is clearly a tax. To me, it could fairly be read as a command. "Buy insurance or else pay." It is not a surcharge on income or the purchase of goods or services which are the hallmarks of a tax. Rather it is a charge for merely existing without insurance. Semantics, I know. But it is a close call in my book.

I hear you, but couldn't all taxes be fairly read as a command then?

[ixcuincle]

Boehner about to react to SC decision. Odds on him breaking into tears?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Let's be honest, the judges all ruled it wasn't a tax under the AIA because they wanted to just deal with the question now instead of in 2 more years. If they ruled it was a tax under the AIA, then it just pushed back the deadline. So, they ruled it wasnt a tax under the AIA so they could get to the meat of the argument now instead of later

I agree. I just wasn't going to get into mind-reading when trying to expalin what happened here. This is confusing enough already.

So...my client asked me what the vote was and I said..."Um....5 to something, I think."

I think I'm going to go with 5-4 and leave it at that. No one cares.

[thebluefood]

For those of you ready to paint Justice Roberts as a RINO or whatever, read the 17th page (23rd overall in the .pdf file from the SCOTUS) under the "1" heading. You can most certainly see he still has a healthy conservative streak.

[wantarace17]

Boehner about to react to SC decision. Odds on him breaking into tears?

Naw he'll probably yell alot

[@DCGoldPants]

I have no idea how this will play out over the summer and fall. What I won't do is throw around words like Liberty and Freedom so carelessly like some elected officials doing the rounds on TV right now.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm watching Boehner, who I think is a nice guy, but what the hell is he talking about? He just said absolutely nothing that made any sense.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 01:30 PM ----------

Now what the hell is Cantor talking about? We've seen people lose the healthcare they are on because of ACA? What????

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 01:31 PM ----------

You know what this is... these guys don't know what to say or do. They were blindsided by this.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 01:32 PM ----------

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream2&hpt=hp_t1#/video/cvplive/cvpstream2

[Stadium-Armory]

I have no idea how this will play out over the summer and fall. What I won't do is throw around words like Liberty and Freedom so carelessly like some elected officials doing the rounds on TV right now.

Romney has already come out as saying that if elected, he will work to overturn the law. Romney is framing the choice: Vote for me if you are against the health care law, or vote for the other guy if you're for it.

Its probably a good strategy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romney-rid-obamacare-replace-obama/story?id=16671255

The Republican nominee said he disagreed with the court's findings and reiterated his pledge to repeal the law, vowing "what the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States."

Romney said the ruling now sets up a crucial choice for voters this fall, insisting the only way to overturn the law now is to elect a new president. "This is the time of choice for the American people," Romney said. "If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama."

Edited June 28, 2012 by Stadium-Armory

[thebluefood]

Romney has already come out as saying that if elected, he will work to overturn the law. Romney is framing the choice: Vote for me if you are against the health care law, or vote for the other guy if you're for it.

Its probably a good strategy.

An excellent strategy, I'd say. This is an issue where people have very strong opinions one way or the other, even if they don't feel very strongly about either candidate. This election maybe a referendum not only on the economy, but on health care reform.

[Koolblue13]

Romney has already come out as saying that if elected, he will work to overturn the law. Romney is framing the choice: Vote for me if you are against the health care law, or vote for the other guy if you're for it.

Its probably a good strategy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romney-rid-obamacare-replace-obama/story?id=16671255

It's a good plan for him. Obamacare is basically his plan, that he pushed in Mass, so it makes no sense, but the voters don't care.

[HBnotBlades]

Now what the hell is Cantor talking about? We've seen people lose the healthcare they are on because of ACA? What????

I've seen this talking point several times, but I've never seen what it's actually referencing. Is there some part of the law that would cause people to lose their healthcare or are they just making things up at this point?