Partisanship v. Law | Chief Justice Roberts versus Right Wing Ideologues

Procrustes Stretched

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
Dec 1, 2008
58,717
6,606
1,840
Positively 4th Street
Partisanship v. Law | Chief Justice Roberts versus Right Wing Ideologues

I have seen posts, by right wing ideologues, all over the world wide web accusing Chief Justice Roberts of choosing the other side. This is odd since most people understand the Courts' Justices are sworn to uphold law, not partisan sides. Justices owe NO allegiance to any person, any party, or to any ideology.

What does the right in America desire? Partisan hacks on the federal bench? It seems so. So much for talk of principles and support for the US Constitution. What about the American flag and all it stands for? How can any honest and decent right winger ever fly the American flag without betraying their hypocrisy?

There are more than a few reasonable, rational, and respected conservatives on this message board, and they know who they are. How do they feel about their compatriots? About not only their expected meltdown, but of the high profile public exposure of their contempt for over 200 years of American values and traditions?

:confused:

with respect and sadness for all the true conservatives here at USMB
:cool:
Dante

note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
 
Last edited:
For all you partisan right wingers out there, you have become exactly what you profess to hate. How sad is that? All partisan fighting aside, how could you demand that a partisan fight in the Courts require our sworn Justices take partisan sides instead or ruling with dignity and respect for American law and the American judicial system?

I know from experience you have no shame, but I didn't know you had absolutely no love of our country and it's values and traditions.

:(

note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
 
Last edited:
The far right extremist and some libertarians have an absolute hatred of constitutional, judicial, and electoral process if they don't get their way. They in no way represent the great heart and spirit of American Republicanism that loves the flag and the Constitution.

And have no doubt about it: if far right extremist and some libertarians ever get the power they want, they will bring a hitlerian era to America.
 
The far right extremist and some libertarians have an absolute hatred of constitutional, judicial, and electoral process if they don't get their way. They in no way represent the great heart and spirit of American Republicanism that loves the flag and the Constitution.

And have no doubt about it: if far right extremist and some libertarians ever get the power they want, they will bring a hitlerian era to America.

:clap2:

Like I've told you, I respect conservatives and Republicans I know. We may not see eye to eye on some things, okay on most things, but we all have a healthy respect for American institutions, traditions and values that have allowed millions of Americans to bridge their differences in civil and respectful ways. There was an American Civil War, and that was a sad and horrific period in our nation's history, but we did our best to move beyond that with forgiveness and fairness and even with respect for unsettled differences that war could not and would not totally heal.

We have great traditions and values to fall back on to guide us through times like this, but at times like this history demands profiles in courage. People who will stand for all that is fair and honest and right.

Where are our profiles in courage? I don't know, but I do believe with all my heart that they are out there, maybe even in here, waiting to answer the call -- the call of courage.

:cool:


note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
 
Last edited:
What conservative principle did Roberts violate?

The Republicans who challenged the law...said the power to regulate commerce does not permit the government to require people to "engage in commerce." If so, they said, the federal government could require everyone to buy healthy vegetables like broccoli, join a health club or buy an American-made car...The oral arguments focused on the argument over the meaning of the Constitution's commerce clause, and the court's conservative majority peppered Verrilli with skeptical questions on that topic. The tax argument got little attention...Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the court had a duty to uphold an act of Congress if there was a constitutional basis for doing so.
Scorned after oral arguments on healthcare, Verrilli emerges a winner - latimes.com

not a one.

well that's it for now.

I hope you people take a close look at what is going on around us.

later
:cool:
dD


note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
 
Last edited:
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com



note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
 
Last edited:
The far right extremist and some libertarians have an absolute hatred of constitutional, judicial, and electoral process if they don't get their way. They in no way represent the great heart and spirit of American Republicanism that loves the flag and the Constitution.

And have no doubt about it: if far right extremist and some libertarians ever get the power they want, they will bring a hitlerian era to America.

:clap2:

Like I've told you, I respect conservatives and Republicans I know. We may not see eye to eye on some things, okay on most things, but we all have a healthy respect for American institutions, traditions and values that have allowed millions of Americans to bridge their differences in civil and respectful ways. There was an American Civil War, and that was a sad and horrific period in our nation's history, but we did our best to move beyond that with forgiveness and fairness and even with respect for unsettled differences that war could not and would not totally heal.

We have great traditions and values to fall back on to guide us through times like this, but at times like this history demands profiles in courage. People who will stand for all that is fair and honest and right.

Where are our profiles in courage? I don't know, but I do believe with all my heart that they are out there, maybe even in here, waiting to answer the call -- the call of courage.

:cool:

I think You too should get a room.
 
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

Or we could say that we expect Him to hold up the Constitution. The Tax that is not a Tax, That is a Tax Argument, may beat the Dog ate my homework argument, granted, but it does appear lame. Obama still says it's not a Tax. All this makes total sense to you both, granted. To those that view Statist Progressivism, as a Threat to Individual Liberty, (I know all of the syllables here confuse you, so I apologize for using big words and complex thought patterns here, but I need to, to make my point), a conflict with Free Will. We end up in the long run spending more time paying for other peoples selfish mistakes, and less time in our own pursuits. This encourages more wrongful action from the Something for nothing, hordes, while transferring the true cost away from the decision makers, on to pretty much anyone still generating income independent of you. That is the real purpose here, that and Control. Why not seek treatment for these destructive Control issues instead? How Many Trillion will be enough each year to satisfy your hunger? You can't print enough, you can't even account for what you already spend.
 
The far right extremist and some libertarians have an absolute hatred of constitutional, judicial, and electoral process if they don't get their way. They in no way represent the great heart and spirit of American Republicanism that loves the flag and the Constitution.

And have no doubt about it: if far right extremist and some libertarians ever get the power they want, they will bring a hitlerian era to America.

:clap2:

Like I've told you, I respect conservatives and Republicans I know. We may not see eye to eye on some things, okay on most things, but we all have a healthy respect for American institutions, traditions and values that have allowed millions of Americans to bridge their differences in civil and respectful ways. There was an American Civil War, and that was a sad and horrific period in our nation's history, but we did our best to move beyond that with forgiveness and fairness and even with respect for unsettled differences that war could not and would not totally heal.

We have great traditions and values to fall back on to guide us through times like this, but at times like this history demands profiles in courage. People who will stand for all that is fair and honest and right.

Where are our profiles in courage? I don't know, but I do believe with all my heart that they are out there, maybe even in here, waiting to answer the call -- the call of courage.

:cool:

I think You too should get a room.

who says we don't already share one, our IPs? :eusa_whistle:
 
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

Or we could say that we expect Him to hold up the Constitution. The Tax that is not a Tax, That is a Tax Argument, may beat the Dog ate my homework argument, granted, but it does appear lame. Obama still says it's not a Tax. All this makes total sense to you both, granted. To those that view Statist Progressivism, as a Threat to Individual Liberty, (I know all of the syllables here confuse you, so I apologize for using big words and complex thought patterns here, but I need to, to make my point), a conflict with Free Will.
...

Free Will? Some recent groundbreaking science questions that even exists. :lmao:

btw, thanks for your concern about what you view as big words and complex thought patterns. Where I come from (a big, complex city overflowing with educational institutions big and small thoughts and ideas that have helped the world progress...) your words and thought patterns are quite pedestrian. :eusa_whistle:

...

thank you :clap2: thank you for a prime example of what I posit

Am I correct in stating: "You want the Court to function according to an interpretation of what it's role and responsibilities." because if not we have a problem. The Founding Fathers and the Framers argued over what exactly the Court's role and responsibilities are, especially during the Marshall Court.

If so, can we agree the main role of the Court is to function as a complete and separate, independent branch of government?

1) In your first sentence, you state that right wing ideologues (you self-identify as one with your use of 'we' in your fist sentence), 'expect' the Chief Justice to 'hold' the Constitution, methinks you meant right wing ideologues want Chief Justice Roberts to uphold the Constitution. Yes? :eusa_whistle:

2) You argue Chief Justice Roberts opinion that the mandate is a tax, that it functions as a tax, is a tax argument and not truly a tax? You also argue that Robert's opinion that it is a tax is partly negated because President Obama's stated opinion is that the mandate is not a tax.

What the President says in public speeches and conversations is not a legal argument. The legal argument Obama's Solicitor General made before the Court -- pay attention here -- posited that the Court must look at the mandate as a tax, if the Court ruled the commerce clause out.

If you bothered to read the Court's opinion, in addition to your regular diet of right wing blogs and news for talking points, you'd see where Robert's based his opinion on the arguments made by the Solicitor General, and Court precedent. The precedents referred to are cited as is the norm with Court rulings.

What about the simple and clear words and thought patterns in the two statements below, do you construe to be evidence of abdication of constitutional duty and responsibilities?

In pressing it's taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

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. - Chief Justice John Roberts



note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
 
Last edited:
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

What’s telling is the conservative sense of ‘betrayal,’ Roberts the ‘back-stabber.’

It also demonstrates how much of conservative dogma runs counter to Constitutional case law and the rule of law.
 
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

What’s telling is the conservative sense of ‘betrayal,’ Roberts the ‘back-stabber.’

It also demonstrates how much of conservative dogma runs counter to Constitutional case law and the rule of law.

Chief Justice Roberts is no liberal. He is more of a conservative type libertarian who was put on the federal bench by people who are anti regulation and pro business, at the expense of people and the environment and common sense. Free Marketeers who put America on the brink of disaster in 2007/2008.

That said, Roberts is from the legal school thought that believes the best way to honor the Constitution and the Judicial System, is to rule in ways that keep partisan politics out of legal considerations.
 
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

What’s telling is the conservative sense of ‘betrayal,’ Roberts the ‘back-stabber.’

It also demonstrates how much of conservative dogma runs counter to Constitutional case law and the rule of law.

Chief Justice Roberts is no liberal. He is more of a conservative type libertarian who was put on the federal bench by people who are anti regulation and pro business, at the expense of people and the environment and common sense. Free Marketeers who put America on the brink of disaster in 2007/2008.

That said, Roberts is from the legal school thought that believes the best way to honor the Constitution and the Judicial System, is to rule in ways that keep partisan politics out of legal considerations.

d'accord
 
From Your Link Dante. Good example of an enema at both ends. You do realize that Justice Marshal had a Conflict of Interest in Marbury V.S. Madison, right? Can you say "Nepotism??? Then there is Pre Ratification Hamilton V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton, The Court is the weakest branch, no it's the strongest. :lol: There is Judicial Review , connecting the dots, V.S. Judicial Review connecting dots that you make up out of thin air, as you go along. Moral Absolutism V.S, Moral Relativism.

The Supreme Court’s decision abounds with legal and political ironies. Foremost, and central to the result, is the majority’s conclusion that the individual mandate is a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to tax. During the legislative debate, the President and his allies were adamant that the mandate was absolutely not a tax. Had they marketed this provision as a tax, the bill would surely not have passed. So the Supreme Court saved the signature legislative achievement of the Obama Administration precisely because it was not what the Administration said it was.

When the case got to court, the Administration invoked the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which bars suits to restrain the collection of any tax. The government argued that this law precluded the challenge to the mandate. So if the mandate was, indeed, a tax, this law would have made the case dead on arrival. But in examining this provision, the court held that the mandate was not, after all, a tax; it was just what Congress called it, a penalty. The choice of labels, the court said, cannot control as to whether the law is constitutional but does control as to whether the tax anti-injunction law applies. When I use a word, the court, like Humpty Dumpty, said, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

The magic of this dueling taxonomy of the word mandate meant that because it is a penalty, the court could go forward to consider its legality, but because it is a tax and not a penalty, it is a lawful exercise of Congress’s taxing power, not an unlawful regulation of commerce as the dissenters asserted. Like Marbury v. Madison 200 years ago, in which the Supreme Court held that it had the power to decide whether laws were constitutional, this court exercised that power after dispensing with a provision that would have denied to the court the power to do so in the first place. If it was a tax, the court could not have upheld the tax. But because it was a penalty, it was lawful as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts has learned a thing or two from his legendary predecessor Chief Justice Marshall.

Yet another irony is that five Justices decided that Congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate doing nothing — not buying health insurance. But five Justices (only Chief Justice Roberts in both camps) held that Congress does have the power to impose a tax for doing the same nothing.

Read more: Health Care Irony: Did Liberals Lose By Winning? | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com
Thanks for playing.
 
What’s telling is the conservative sense of ‘betrayal,’ Roberts the ‘back-stabber.’

It also demonstrates how much of conservative dogma runs counter to Constitutional case law and the rule of law.

Chief Justice Roberts is no liberal. He is more of a conservative type libertarian who was put on the federal bench by people who are anti regulation and pro business, at the expense of people and the environment and common sense. Free Marketeers who put America on the brink of disaster in 2007/2008.

That said, Roberts is from the legal school thought that believes the best way to honor the Constitution and the Judicial System, is to rule in ways that keep partisan politics out of legal considerations.

d'accord

d'accord, d'nial, d'mented, d'dee...

d'del
 
It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

---

During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

What’s telling is the conservative sense of ‘betrayal,’ Roberts the ‘back-stabber.’

It also demonstrates how much of conservative dogma runs counter to Constitutional case law and the rule of law.

Chief Justice Roberts is no liberal. He is more of a conservative type libertarian who was put on the federal bench by people who are anti regulation and pro business, at the expense of people and the environment and common sense. Free Marketeers who put America on the brink of disaster in 2007/2008.

That said, Roberts is from the legal school thought that believes the best way to honor the Constitution and the Judicial System, is to rule in ways that keep partisan politics out of legal considerations.

I have nothing against Roberts personally. I just believe he screwed up here. I am disappointed. I agree that it is not the Courts role to save us from the consequences of our own stupidity. I just don't see it as the Courts role to enable Tyranny. Obama is still saying it is not a tax. Even the Left doesn't agree with the foundation of his ruling. What does that tell you.
 
Partisanship v. Law | Chief Justice Roberts versus Right Wing Ideologues

I have seen posts, by right wing ideologues, all over the world wide web accusing Chief Justice Roberts of choosing the other side. This is odd since most people understand the Courts' Justices are sworn to uphold law, not partisan sides. Justices owe NO allegiance to any person, any party, or to any ideology.

What does the right in America desire? Partisan hacks on the federal bench? It seems so. So much for talk of principles and support for the US Constitution. What about the American flag and all it stands for? How can any honest and decent right winger ever fly the American flag without betraying their hypocrisy?

There are more than a few reasonable, rational, and respected conservatives on this message board, and they know who they are. How do they feel about their compatriots? About not only their expected meltdown, but of the high profile public exposure of their contempt for over 200 years of American values and traditions?

:confused:

with respect and sadness for all the true conservatives here at USMB
:cool:
Dante

note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?

Can anyone explain how Roberts went from being a partisan hack after United States v Arizona to the most brilliant man in America after NFIB v Sebelius?

Didn't think so.
 
1) (a): From Your Link Dante. Good example of an enema at both ends. You do realize that Justice Marshal had a Conflict of Interest in Marbury V.S. Madison, right? Can you say "Nepotism??? (b): Then there is Pre Ratification Hamilton V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton, The Court is the weakest branch, no it's the strongest. :lol: (c): There is Judicial Review , connecting the dots, V.S. Judicial Review connecting dots that you make up out of thin air, as you go along. Moral Absolutism V.S, Moral Relativism.

2) The Supreme Court’s decision abounds with legal and political ironies. Foremost, and central to the result, is the majority’s conclusion that the individual mandate is a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to tax. During the legislative debate, the President and his allies were adamant that the mandate was absolutely not a tax. Had they marketed this provision as a tax, the bill would surely not have passed. So the Supreme Court saved the signature legislative achievement of the Obama Administration precisely because it was not what the Administration said it was.

3) When the case got to court, the Administration invoked the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which bars suits to restrain the collection of any tax. The government argued that this law precluded the challenge to the mandate. So if the mandate was, indeed, a tax, this law would have made the case dead on arrival. But in examining this provision, the court held that the mandate was not, after all, a tax; it was just what Congress called it, a penalty. The choice of labels, the court said, cannot control as to whether the law is constitutional but does control as to whether the tax anti-injunction law applies. When I use a word, the court, like Humpty Dumpty, said, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

4) The magic of this dueling taxonomy of the word mandate meant that because it is a penalty, the court could go forward to consider its legality, but because it is a tax and not a penalty, it is a lawful exercise of Congress’s taxing power, not an unlawful regulation of commerce as the dissenters asserted. Like Marbury v. Madison 200 years ago, in which the Supreme Court held that it had the power to decide whether laws were constitutional, this court exercised that power after dispensing with a provision that would have denied to the court the power to do so in the first place. If it was a tax, the court could not have upheld the tax. But because it was a penalty, it was lawful as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts has learned a thing or two from his legendary predecessor Chief Justice Marshall.

Yet another irony is that five Justices decided that Congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate doing nothing — not buying health insurance. But five Justices (only Chief Justice Roberts in both camps) held that Congress does have the power to impose a tax for doing the same nothing.

Read more: Health Care Irony: Did Liberals Lose By Winning? | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com
Thanks for playing.

ACA pdf file

2) Yes, decisions on Constitutional issues are often filled with ironies, both political and legal. The saving of the PPACA on Constitutional grounds is based on the text in the law, and Court precedent, and on the argument made by the Solicitor General. Granted it was a back up argument, but Court precedent as cited by Roberts, demands the Court do what it did in order to NOT interfere with Congressional prerogative -- passing legislation.

Roberts decision is well thought out, well written, and should and probably will be taught in all law schools as an example of how the Court functions in it's Constitutional role, leaving partisan politics out of the equation. It's a pretty conservative legal opinion if you read it as written, without ideological prejudices.

The mandate is neither a penalty nor a tax, the payment required in the mandate, is a penalty or a tax. The payment described in the mandate is called a 'shared responsibility payment." :eusa_whistle:

3) You wrote "But in examining this provision, the court held that the mandate was not, after all, a tax; it was just what Congress called it, a penalty." - and here you misrepresent what exactly the Court said. (link page 2 of pdf: Roberts concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit.) The Court wrote: "The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a 'tax' for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."

The payment is not the mandate. The mandate requires a payment. Robert's meaning is being misrepresented and misconstrued by the GOP and the right wing ideologues. Roberts did NOT write the mandate was what Congress called it, a 'penalty,' Roberts wrote 'the payment' -- Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a 'tax' for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act."

The payment, being the shared responsibility payment, which is mandated by the Affordability Care Act.

4) Your words "dueling taxonomy of the word mandate" is incorrect. Nowhere do I find the word 'mandate' being used in the way you have used it in your magical and specious argument. :tongue:

The dissenters argued that the mandated shared responsibility payment, was a tax and not a penalty. Therefore, the argument that the payment is an unlawful exercise of commerce as the dissenters asserted is out.


---
note: 1) will be addressed in a separate post. :D
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top