eagle_eye222001 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1340906092' post='2450020'] Bush didn't fail you. This is one of the most conservative courts in decades. Maybe not every law that you dislike is unconstitutional. [/quote] Have you bought your quota of broccoli today? Or are you going to pay the tax so you don't have to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1340906790' post='2450028'] Have you bought your quota of broccoli today? Or are you going to pay the tax so you don't have to? [/quote] Seriously, could you shut the little Sean Hannity dwelling in you head up for like five floopying seconds and act like grown up? The constituion is not a logically perfect model. There are a number of really difficult issues at stake here and there was no totally clear solution to this suit. I do not like Obamacare. And I took the constitutional arguments against it far more seriously than almost any other communist pinko pansy that I know. This bill was arguably unconstitutional. It was also arguably constitutional. The USSC did a good job here. As Bro Adam pointed out they called a spade a spade in showing that this was basically a tax. By doing so they avoided the sticky issue of how the commerce clause is limited. They made a very reasonable ruling out of a very complicated issue. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean that Roberts failed you. His job as a judge, and this is something conservatives used o know, is not to be a reflexively partisan figure. That's not to say that Scalia is a reflexively partisan actor. His concerns are also very reasonable. My complaint isn't with any of the conservative justices here. It's with people like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filius_angelorum Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 If there were not conditions under which an ordinary individual could be exempt from the tax, e.g., the mandate would not have been upheld. I would have liked to see this law struck down on religious liberty grounds, but these were not before the court today. Roberts has also successfully maneuvered into the position of being to dictate the interpretation of the Health Care Law, which is a good thing if a religious liberty issue comes before the court on this law. The conservatives will be united in any ruling that limits the impact of ObamaCare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 As one of the other judges stated. The Administration made great effort to phrase the monetary payment as a penalty not a tax. It should have been overturned and the Administration required to start back at square 1 and rephrase it as a tax for it to parse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1340906092' post='2450020'] Bush didn't fail you. This is one of the most conservative courts in decades. Maybe not every law that you dislike is unconstitutional. [/quote] I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Just so it's clear, the Supreme Court DID NOT RULE ON THE HHS MANDATE TODAY! Not everything with the word "mandate" is about religious liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthephysicist Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 [quote name='GeorgiiMichael' timestamp='1340908728' post='2450040'] Just so it's clear, the Supreme Court DID NOT RULE ON THE HHS MANDATE TODAY! Not everything with the word "mandate" is about religious liberty. [/quote] Wait what? Now I'm lost. Were there two separate cases going on? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Today was about Obamacare. Not the HHS mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Interesting points I'm going to throw out to the phatmarsees. This from a lawyer friend: [quote][color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]Some quick Constitutional Theory for you to consider in light of this decision. The Court can't review taxes until they are in place and being collected based on a case that goes back to 1867. The mandate, now identified as a tax, isn't effective until 2014. From what I'm seeing, the opinion isn't saying that the individual mandate is Constitutional or will last long term, it's just saying that the issue isn't ripe for decision.[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]So the bottom line for the winners and losers today, it ain't over[/left][/size][/font][/color][/quote] I actually am walking away from this decision with a lot more respect for Justice Roberts than I have before. From his opinion: [quote][color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.[/left][/size][/font][/color][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthephysicist Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1340910971' post='2450053'] Today was about Obamacare. Not the HHS mandate. [/quote] I did not realize that. I advertised this thread wrong. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 [quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1340911344' post='2450057'] I did not realize that. I advertised this thread wrong. My bad. [/quote] It's okay. I was really confused about it as well. I wasn't sure if it was the HHS mandate, Obamacare, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie12 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I didn't know that either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 To be clear, my general opinion is that the law itself smell of elderberriess and is not good policy; however, I agree with Chief Justice Roberts' statement regarding the SCOTUS not ruling on the quality of a law, but rather its constitutionality. And since the mandate amounts to a tax, and the Congress retains the right to tax, the croutonspy law should and will stand...until it's repealed... [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1340904920' post='2450016'] Of course we can overturn it, but will we? We have been trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade... [/quote] False. Roe v. Wade was not a law enacted by Congress than can be repealed or overturned. It was a finding from a Supreme Court case. Get it together little brat [quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1340905060' post='2450018'] I have been trying to figure out why I didn't feel as angry as I thought I should have when the announcement was made this morning. I think I agree with this: [url="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/"]http://www.redstate....n-john-roberts/[/url] 1. The individual mandate is a tax, even though Obama said it is not. 2. Roberts called him out on his lie and told us it is a tax, but because it is a tax it is constitutional. 3. Obama just gave middle class Americans one of the biggest tax increases in history. 4. Democrats lost one of their main rallying points to keep Obama in office if the courts struck down the ACA. 5. This is still a hugely unpopular bill. How do you get rid of a hugely unpopular bill? Vote for new executive and legislative leaders. Ideally we will see a GOP run house, senate, and executive branch in November. That in itself though will have problems because: The Catholic Church is not opposed to health care reform. As Catholics we are not opposed to the ACA as reform, except for its significant problematic portions that need to be struck out of the law. Roberts is forcing the American people to deal with that. I'm still forming my opinion on this though and [color=#ff0000]admit I could be completely wrong on the reasoning in the article. We need time to digest this.[/color] [/quote] Excellent summation here. [quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1340907835' post='2450035'] As one of the other judges stated. The Administration made great effort to phrase the monetary payment as a penalty not a tax. It should have been overturned and the Administration required to start back at square 1 and rephrase it as a tax for it to parse. [/quote] Roberts' knocked it out of the park with his response to this. Essentially, he said that he wasn't going to play semantical games here. A tax is a tax, no matter what Obama and his people want to call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I don't think you can call it semantics. Obama did not want to mess with taxes, he wanted to add fines and penalties. Fines and penalties are much much different than taxes. Being fined for breaking health code at a restaraunt is not a tax on the restaraunt, it is a fine. Being fined for not using obamacare isn't a tax, it is a fine. If you want to call it a tax, then it should be re-written to call it a tax. I don't think it is just to say "well as a fine it wouldn't be constitutional, so we'll call it a tax, and then it's constitutional even though it isn't want the administration intended". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1340914388' post='2450088'] I don't think you can call it semantics. Obama did not want to mess with taxes, he wanted to add fines and penalties. Fines and penalties are much much different than taxes. Being fined for breaking health code at a restaraunt is not a tax on the restaraunt, it is a fine. Being fined for not using obamacare isn't a tax, it is a fine. [/quote] [quote]tax- (noun) a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes Source: [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax?show=1&t=1340917732"]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax?show=1&t=1340917732[/url][/quote] So yeah, a fine can be a tax. Edited June 28, 2012 by kujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now