Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Make no mistake, had this been struck down (or a portion of it), the conservatives here and afar would have yapped us to death about how this was evidence of Obama's failure and eventual defeat.

Now that they lost, it means little, apparently.

:rolleyes:

And vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so Roberts also specifically ruled that there is no power under the interstate commerce clause to compel someone into commerce.

Now, let's be clear about this: that portion of his opinion is not the majority opinion, it is merely his findings. That may carry a lot of weight in the future, and it is an important opinion because HE puts some limits on interstate commerce clause. But, in this case, it appears there is no holding as to whether the interstate commerce clause can compel people into commerce....

more to come as i read through this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Make no mistake, had this been struck down (or a portion of it), the conservatives here and afar would have yapped us to death about how this was evidence of Obama's failure and eventual defeat.

Now that they lost, it means little, apparently.

:rolleyes:

i'm on obama's side, and i agree that it will make little difference in the polls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Roberts:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall

within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a

capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person,

“without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)

(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not

obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly

not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property.

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax

that must be apportioned among the several States.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CNN got it ****ing wrong.

(I've been good about not swearing for the last month' date=' but considering I sent an email to some colleagues based on the CNN report, I'm really angry).[/quote']

Ehhh. I suspect they were sitting in the court when the cleark said something like "the mandate is not upheld under the commerce clause."

They tweeted.

Then the clerk said, "but....it is upheld under taxing authority."

They said, oh crap, and immediately re-tweeted.

So, they just jumped the gun, probably at the amusement of the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For conservatives overreacting, I found view from the scotusblog this interesting:

The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect Roberts joined the left on the court so he could write the opinion and thus include language that is more limiting than the other justices might have otherwise included.

no, that doesn't make sense. his was the deciding vote. he could have just as easily struck it down 5 to 4 if he didn't like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so Roberts also specifically ruled that there is no power under the interstate commerce clause to compel someone into commerce.

Now, let's be clear about this: that portion of his opinion is not the majority opinion, it is merely his findings. That may carry a lot of weight in the future, and it is an important opinion because HE puts some limits on interstate commerce clause. But, in this case, it appears there is no holding as to whether the interstate commerce clause can compel people into commerce....

more to come as i read through this.

Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia agree w/ Roberts that the commerce clause cant compel people into commerce.

So the Supreme Court DID hold that

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Roberts:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall

within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a

capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person,

“without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)

(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not

obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly

not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property.

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax

that must be apportioned among the several States.

Is that saying that 100% of Americans will pay the tax regardless of income then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so Roberts also specifically ruled that there is no power under the interstate commerce clause to compel someone into commerce.

Now, let's be clear about this: that portion of his opinion is not the majority opinion, it is merely his findings. That may carry a lot of weight in the future, and it is an important opinion because HE puts some limits on interstate commerce clause. But, in this case, it appears there is no holding as to whether the interstate commerce clause can compel people into commerce....

more to come as i read through this.

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Make no mistake, had this been struck down (or a portion of it), the conservatives here and afar would have yapped us to death about how this was evidence of Obama's failure and eventual defeat.

Now that they lost, it means little, apparently.

:rolleyes:

What you are talking about is spin. If Obama wins he should spin it as good for him, If he had lost likewise he would have spun it as good for him; cause the nation needs healthcare reform and Obama's still the only guy with a viable plan.

Just like the GOP declaires victory either way...

I don't think this ruling will have an effect on the november election. It hurts him as much as it helps him, weather he won or not.. Ultimately and interestingly Mitt has turned a proclivity to flip flopping to his advantage. Now whenever he speaks people think he's just saying what he has to say, and that he "really" believes in their position... As such the election ceases to have anything to do with Romney. The election is entirely shapping up as a mandate in favor or against Obama. Like him or hate him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
no, that doesn't make sense. his was the deciding vote. he could have just as easily struck it down 5 to 4 if he didn't like it.

If he strikes it down, he doesn't get to decide who writes the opinion. He votes with the majority so he gets to write the opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This ruling wont have any affect at all on the POTUS race. It may help mobilize some voters in right leaning districts in Congressional races, but just taking them from "likely GOP" to "Safe GOP".
Good grief.

What you say is surely true, some undecideds will move further right. But others will reflect on the absolute hysteria from the right about the unconstitutionality of the law and realize these people are perhaps not what they wish to follow.

If nothing else, this will increase pressure on Romney and the Republicans to come up with specific alternatives. "Repeal and replace" kind of went away in recent months while the GOP hoped the Supremes would carry their water. Now they'll have to fight the ACA as policy and that will be much harder to do without the "replace" part of the mantra. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...