CJ Roberts on "tax."

[8537]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

The Conservatives justices wrote the minority opinion, right?

Yes - in which they said it wasn't a tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can be taxed for what you earn.

You can be taxed on what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you do.

You can be penalized for what you don't do.

You can be penalized for what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you don't buy -- but then it's a tax -- except when it isn't a tax.

See? We're getting the hang of this.

Next up? The Federal Government will impose a tax on taxes.

All true. Throw in some taxation for breathing also since we're all hurting the poor little planet.

You mean as in "you must breath, if you stop breathing we will tax you?" Cause if you stop breathing we'll tax you cause we told you to breathe and secondly since yer dead we're gonna take everything you own away from you and give it to the poor. It's not the poor's fault that you worked your ass off all you life to earn stuff to leave to your kids.

You get a tax break of several thousand dollars a year for having those kids.

 

[Liability]

The Conservatives justices wrote the minority opinion, right?

Well, perhaps initially. At least until CJ Roberts flipped.

I'm still unclear as to the flip?

Roberts was (reportedly) on board with logic and conservatism (they work well together) UNTIL he evidently took political note of the 'dire consequences' to the 'public' perception of SCOTUS legitimacy.*

So he and Kennedy (supposedly) went at it. Oddly enough, Kennedy (whom many suspected might be the weak link against a proper honest Constitutionally sound ruling) held tough. But the CJ -- for reasons having to do with institutional concerns, not the law or the Constitutionality of the Act, which was supposed to be the only thing on his mind pursuant to his fucking oath -- became the weak link. He couldn't persuade one single honest, rational, non-partisan-hack on the Court to join him in his cowardly, craven abdication.

_________________
* In other words, he took the shrill harpish dishonest partisan shill polemic from the liberal media as being valid.

 

[Liability]

All true. Throw in some taxation for breathing also since we're all hurting the poor little planet.

You mean as in "you must breath, if you stop breathing we will tax you?" Cause if you stop breathing we'll tax you cause we told you to breathe and secondly since yer dead we're gonna take everything you own away from you and give it to the poor. It's not the poor's fault that you worked your ass off all you life to earn stuff to leave to your kids.

You get a tax break of several thousand dollars a year for having those kids.

Irrelevant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sometimes it's best to define terms:

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Fee: a sum paid or charged for a privilege

Ad Valorem: according to the worth

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Pragmatic: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Penalty: a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.

Simple words, aren't they?

Sure, Freddo. Sure.

It's still a tax

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sometimes it's best to define terms:

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Fee: a sum paid or charged for a privilege

Ad Valorem: according to the worth

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Pragmatic: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Penalty: a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.

Simple words, aren't they?

And the irony that drips like sweet nectarine: We're all paying a tax to the supposed 1 percent that you hate but yet you love it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

You're clearly not in your right mind, because that's like saying "I'm paying a penalty because I'm not allowed to write off expenses in association with drilling an oil well because I don't own an oil well"

 

[zeke]

Tell you what is ok with me. Call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it what ever the hell you want.

But it is something I won't pay. Know why. Cause I got fuking health care insurance.

If all you dead beat, wanna health care for free, would get off your asses and get a job with benefits, you could have health insurance as well.

Or if unable or un willing to get a job with benefits, buy it from all the insurance companies that are willing to sell to you.

But this shit of "free" medical care via the emergency room, then whining about it, is bull shit and needs to stop.
If you use heath care and can't pay for it you are a dead beat and I am paying for you to get your medical care.

Buy a policy or pay the fuking tax penalty or tax whatever you want to call it. Seems like it is the least you could do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

There HAS been lots of word-play and gamesmanship on the political side of the "discussion" and debate on ObamaCare. I readily admit it.

But here's the thing. Is that the way we want our SCOTUS to decide important cases? I say it isn't. It's dangerous and dishonest.

Let's go one step further. Let's say that the penalty (regardless of the fact that Congress made a VERY deliberate choice to call it that and not a 'tax") actually IS a tax. Let's say, in other words, that CJ Roberts put the accurate label on the penalty.

Question one: was that within the province of the SCOTUS?

Outside of the political realm, the case that it's a tax seems pretty clear. That's why it's handled on a 1040 and recorded with the IRS, why collection is the same as other taxes collected by said IRS. The only difference is a penalty that can't include imprisonment. I'm frankly shocked that Thomas, Scalia and Alito didn't see it as such (Nor did some of the liberal judges, iirc)

Question two: IF the SCOTUS actually does have some right to re-write the words of the statute (a doesn't mean "A" just because the Legislative Branch chose to call it "A"; "A" is actually "B"), then was the ObamaCare opinion written by the CJ honest when it went on to say that the "tax" wasn't a "tax" as that word is used when contemplating the Anti-Injunction Law?

I'm not familiar with the Anti-Injunction law. Despite my posting here today, I also don't have time to research it at the moment

It's irrelevant, the Anti-injunction act, that is. To be constitutional a law only has to satify one constitutional criterion, not every single one that anyone might argue for. That's why this law could be constitutional under the taxing power without being constitutional under the Commerce clause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

The Conservatives justices wrote the minority opinion, right?

Yes - in which they said it wasn't a tax.

They could have said it was a hobbit, they were the minority opinion. If they said it was a Hobbit would you call it the Bilbo Tax?

Minority Opinion is not the winning side, you knew that, right?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You can be taxed for what you earn.

You can be taxed on what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you do.

You can be penalized for what you don't do.

You can be penalized for what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you don't buy -- but then it's a tax -- except when it isn't a tax.

See? We're getting the hang of this.

Next up? The Federal Government will impose a tax on taxes.

All true. Throw in some taxation for breathing also since we're all hurting the poor little planet.

You mean as in "you must breath, if you stop breathing we will tax you?" Cause if you stop breathing we'll tax you cause we told you to breathe and secondly since yer dead we're gonna take everything you own away from you and give it to the poor. It's not the poor's fault that you worked your ass off all you life to earn stuff to leave to your kids.

That too because you need to give more and more and more and more. Even though you paid taxes on your estate, it's just not enough WT. Your kids need to suck it up and pay more and then you need to get on your knees and give grace to your great govt.

 

[The T]

Well, perhaps initially. At least until CJ Roberts flipped.

I'm still unclear as to the flip?

Roberts was (reportedly) on board with logic and conservatism (they work well together) UNTIL he evidently took political note of the 'dire consequences' to the 'public' perception of SCOTUS legitimacy.*

So he and Kennedy (supposedly) went at it. Oddly enough, Kennedy (whom many suspected might be the weak link against a proper honest Constitutionally sound ruling) held tough. But the CJ -- for reasons having to do with institutional concerns, not the law or the Constitutionality of the Act, which was supposed to be the only thing on his mind pursuant to his fucking oath -- became the weak link. He couldn't persuade one single honest, rational, non-partisan-hack on the Court to join him in his cowardly, craven abdication.

_________________
* In other words, he took the shrill harpish dishonest partisan shill polemic from the liberal media as being valid.

So...since the Congress in voting this with the caviat of the 'Commerce Clause' and not taxation...CJ Roberts effectively rewrote the law caqlling it a tax? Legislating from the bench...and in your mind? Was this to project his 'legacy' on the bench?

 

[Liability]

Tell you what is ok with me. Call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it what ever the hell you want.

But it is something I won't pay. Know why. Cause I got fuking health care insurance.

If all you dead beat, wanna health care for free, would get off your asses and get a job with benefits, you could have health insurance as well.

Or if unable or un willing to get a job with benefits, buy it from all the insurance companies that are willing to sell to you.

But this shit of "free" medical care via the emergency room, then whining about it, is bull shit and needs to stop.
If you use heath care and can't pay for it you are a dead beat and I am paying for you to get your medical care.

Buy a policy or pay the fuking tax penalty or tax whatever you want to call it. Seems like it is the least you could do.

No. The least I can do is whatever I think I choose to do and not do.

But as soon as the government gives me a fucking order to buy their preferred product or face a penalty (err -- I mean "tax -- err -- a tax which isn't a tax sometimes except when it is sometimes) then they have imposed on me MORE than they have a Constitutional authority to impose on me.

If I want to reject their wise counsel, I NOW have a choice of rejecting it and having to pay for it OR accept it.

Before, my freedom of choice was EITHER to take their advice or reject it as I wish without government imposed penalty/tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

You're clearly not in your right mind, because that's like saying "I'm paying a penalty because I'm not allowed to write off expenses in association with drilling an oil well" because I don't own an oil well"

Didn't you ever do your own taxes?

Your tax liability starts at a certain number, and then you are able to pare it down by taking your exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.

My federal income tax is about $5000. That's what I pay. Someone with 2 children making what I make has the same tax liability to START with,

then they deduct their children as dependents, then they take the child tax credit, and whatever else they may get,

and the next thing you know they're paying $1000 compared to my $5000, on the same income.

That's my penalty for not having children.

It's no different than the penalty for not having health insurance. It's a tax.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Roberts essentially just rewrote the law right there. It should have been sent back to congress.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, perhaps initially. At least until CJ Roberts flipped.

I'm still unclear as to the flip?

Roberts was (reportedly) on board with logic and conservatism (they work well together) UNTIL he evidently took political note of the 'dire consequences' to the 'public' perception of SCOTUS legitimacy.*

What evidence supports your conclusion that logic and conservatism work well together?

So he and Kennedy (supposedly) went at it. Oddly enough, Kennedy (whom many suspected might be the weak link against a proper honest Constitutionally sound ruling) held tough. But the CJ -- for reasons having to do with institutional concerns, not the law or the Constitutionality of the Act, which was supposed to be the only thing on his mind pursuant to his fucking oath -- became the weak link. He couldn't persuade one single honest, rational, non-partisan-hack on the Court to join him in his cowardly, craven abdication.

Is this your opinion or have you and the CJ discussed his vote in detail?

_________________
* In other words, he took the shrill harpish dishonest partisan shill polemic from the liberal media as being valid.

In other words he must be a RINO, a person who doesn't hold fast to an ideology no matter the consequences of doing so (when logic and conservatism collide)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

You're clearly not in your right mind, because that's like saying "I'm paying a penalty because I'm not allowed to write off expenses in association with drilling an oil well" because I don't own an oil well"

Didn't you ever do your own taxes?

Your tax liability starts at a certain number, and then you are able to pare it down by taking your exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.

My federal income tax is about $5000. That's what I pay. Someone with 2 children making what I make has the same tax liability to START with,

then they deduct their children as dependents, then they take the child tax credit, and whatever else they may get,

and the next thing you know they're paying $1000 compared to my $5000, on the same income.

That's my penalty for not having children.

It's no different than the penalty for not having health insurance. It's a tax.

If you owned an oil rig as an individual you'd get deprecation, depletion allowances, tax credits and write-offs. So you're being penalized for not owning an oil rig. You'd probably get money back on the same income

 

[Liability]

I'm still unclear as to the flip?

Roberts was (reportedly) on board with logic and conservatism (they work well together) UNTIL he evidently took political note of the 'dire consequences' to the 'public' perception of SCOTUS legitimacy.*

So he and Kennedy (supposedly) went at it. Oddly enough, Kennedy (whom many suspected might be the weak link against a proper honest Constitutionally sound ruling) held tough. But the CJ -- for reasons having to do with institutional concerns, not the law or the Constitutionality of the Act, which was supposed to be the only thing on his mind pursuant to his fucking oath -- became the weak link. He couldn't persuade one single honest, rational, non-partisan-hack on the Court to join him in his cowardly, craven abdication.

_________________
* In other words, he took the shrill harpish dishonest partisan shill polemic from the liberal media as being valid.

So...since the Congress in voting this with the caviat of the 'Commerce Clause' and not taxation...CJ Roberts effectively rewrote the law caqlling it a tax? Legislating from the bench...and in your mind? Was this to project his 'legacy' on the bench?

There is no question. If he had not re-written the law, then the imposition of the penalty would have had no basis under the Constitution. It ONLY could "survive" Judicial review IF he re-labeled the penalty as a "tax." So that's what he did. Like any fucking judicial activist, he legislated from the bench.

Why he did it is a bit more complicated, apparently. It appears (as per reported accounts by folks based on insider knowledge sourced and re-sourced) that he was concerned with the public perception about the ongoing legitimacy of the Judicial Branch and the SCOTUS itself. If that's true, then he let the partisan liberals who write such shit infect his judicial thinking. He passed a judicial decision on the basis of purely political consequences. He thus violated his oath. And he undermined the integrity of the judicial branch in the very process. Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News

 

[The T]

Roberts essentially just rewrote the law right there. It should have been sent back to congress.

In effect (in my mind anyway), it was. Repeal motions as I understand it are underway. (And why this election's importence just got ratcheted up severely).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Roberts essentially just rewrote the law right there. It should have been sent back to congress.

Why didn't he rewrite Stolen Valor to have it pass? What's the litmus test for when the CJ sends it back for a rewrite?