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

[midcan5]

To tax or not to tax that is the dilemma, if you have no insurance and go to the emergency room is my part of your care a tax to me or am I now responsible for your care. Doesn't matter does it.

If you smoke and drink too much and I / we have to pay for your care, why? Can I call your care a tax or a mandate or what?

Or a better analogue, if you drive you must get insurance, is that a tax now that we are in a Hamlet sort of way? Is my or your car insurance now a tax?

Get over it wingnuts, Roberts did the constitutional thing, he recognized congress has the right to tax to promote the common good.

"If the Affordable Care Act imposed a mandate, it was ordering people to buy insurance, and nobody likes to be told what to do by the government. But if it was a tax, then it actually gave people a choice: Pay a small tax, or buy health insurance. And if you actually read the bill, that's exactly what the law said. The mandate was directed at "taxpayer". Every taxpayer not otherwise exempted had to indicate on their tax return if they had health insurance, and if they didn't, they had to pay a small penalty." Tax power: The little argument that could - CNN.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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. (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) 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.

3) 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) Some people have never liked Marbury v. Madison. So what? Some people will never like individual legal decisions. There are competing provisions and competing precedents in complicated cases before the Court. It is the legal reasoning behind the provisions addressed and the precedents cited, that form the basis for rational, reasonable, and honestly intelligent debate.

Whatever arguments you throw up against Marbury v. Madison, have been thrown for 200 years and have been on the losing side of any debate. Does Marbury v. Madison, and most all legal decisions since, make many of those arguments moot?

3) (page 2 & 3 of the pdf file ): Roberts concluded that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. and "Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority." "Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act."

Roberts concluded Congress could Constitutionally require individuals to pay the shared payment responsibility penalty, which is in reality a tax, under the mandate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Roberts screwed up? How? You are disappointed because Roberts did not rule in an ideologically partisan way. He ruled in an way that kept the Court out of political and Congressional spheres.

You mention Tyranny...you lost me



Obama can say whatever he likes. The GOP and the right wing ideologues like you are saying whatever you like. The fact is the Obama administration in one of it's alternative arguments, asked the Court to view the shared payment responsibility as a tax.

I don't care what the left thinks about the foundation of the ruling. Neither the President nor I come at this from a leftists point of view. Fact: Obama is not a leftist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To tax or not to tax that is the dilemma, if you have no insurance and go to the emergency room is my part of your care a tax to me or am I now responsible for your care. Doesn't matter does it.

If you smoke and drink too much and I / we have to pay for your care, why? Can I call your care a tax or a mandate or what?

Or a better analogue, if you drive you must get insurance, is that a tax now that we are in a Hamlet sort of way? Is my or your car insurance now a tax?

Get over it wingnuts, Roberts did the constitutional thing, he recognized congress has the right to tax to promote the common good.

"If the Affordable Care Act imposed a mandate, it was ordering people to buy insurance, and nobody likes to be told what to do by the government. But if it was a tax, then it actually gave people a choice: Pay a small tax, or buy health insurance. And if you actually read the bill, that's exactly what the law said. The mandate was directed at "taxpayer". Every taxpayer not otherwise exempted had to indicate on their tax return if they had health insurance, and if they didn't, they had to pay a small penalty." Tax power: The little argument that could - CNN.com

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Can you list all these imaginary folks who called Roberts a partisan hack because of United States v Arizona?

and

Can you list all these imaginary folks who called Roberts the most brilliant man in America after NFIB v Sebelius?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or we could say that we expect Him to hold up the Constitution.

All jurists are expected to uphold Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law. Jurists are expected to rule in a consistent manner pursuant to established and settled Constitutional case law and precedent.

The Supreme Court is authorized per the doctrine of judicial review to interpret the Constitution in such a manner as to determine if a given law or action of government is offensive to the Constitution, and if found to be offensive, strike it down.

With regard to the Healthcare Cases, the Court determined the IM was Constitutional as part of Congress’ authority to tax. In its ruling the majority provided case law in support, evidence from the text of the Act itself, IRS law and policy, and other relevant documentation from the various briefs from the amici.

It is just as inconsistent, therefore, for partisan republicans to expect the CJ to strike down the ACA simply because he is considered ‘one of their own.’ Are conservatives so devoid of principle and character that they would actually expect a justice of the High Court to ignore the rule of law only to appease the partisan motives of the right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or we could say that we expect Him to hold up the Constitution.

All jurists are expected to uphold Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law. Jurists are expected to rule in a consistent manner pursuant to established and settled Constitutional case law and precedent.

The Supreme Court is authorized per the doctrine of judicial review to interpret the Constitution in such a manner as to determine if a given law or action of government is offensive to the Constitution, and if found to be offensive, strike it down.

With regard to the Healthcare Cases, the Court determined the IM was Constitutional as part of Congress’ authority to tax. In its ruling the majority provided case law in support, evidence from the text of the Act itself, IRS law and policy, and other relevant documentation from the various briefs from the amici.

It is just as inconsistent, therefore, for partisan republicans to expect the CJ to strike down the ACA simply because he is considered ‘one of their own.’ Are conservatives so devoid of principle and character that they would actually expect a justice of the High Court to ignore the rule of law only to appease the partisan motives of the right.

Why do you keep getting that backwards.

I recently found this entry in a college catalog, I suggest you sign up for the course.

Pre Basic Remedial Constitutional Law 1:

This course will explain why all law, including case law, only exist in the context of the Constitution of the United States. This is such a bedrock principle that we are actually shamed to admit our entrance examination require us to even mention it, but we, as a prelaw school, care more about money than we do assuring that future lawyers understand this before we take their money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

Hospitals do not have to comply if...

again, lying through omission is propaganda by another name.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

Hospitals do not have to comply if...

again, lying through omission is propaganda by another name.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Do you have a point here? Did I say that all hospitals are required to comply with the law?

I didn't think so. The guy was complaining about people using emergency rooms and not paying.

I asked midacn5, now I will ask you.

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

Hospitals do not have to comply if...

again, lying through omission is propaganda by another name.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Do you have a point here? Did I say that all hospitals are required to comply with the law?

I didn't think so. The guy was complaining about people using emergency rooms and not paying.

I asked midacn5, now I will ask you.

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

All hospitals? Anyone? Really??

 

[Intense]

freewill, freedom. liberty. You don't have unlimited boundries in these areas. There are restrictions.

No argument there. There are natural barriers, there are man made barriers. There are barriers we impose by the Consent of the Governed. The Key here, is Purpose, Cause, Due Process. Maybe, if you live your whole life institutionalized, you fit right in with the "Can't" mentality. Myself, I like Liberty, I like Purpose. Show me why and how a certain behavior is hurtful, past certain boundaries, I'm listening.

What you advocate is not that though. You want to take from those that succeed, beyond their charity, and want to apply it to those that can't get it right, no matter what they do. You are rewarding incompetence and misdirection, with resources that really don't even belong to you. When it comes to ability and outcome, we are not interchangeable. We are Each Unique, with different measures of talent and ability. Rather than learn from success and imitate it, you prefer to subjugate it. All intent and Actions have Consequences. Even Governments must face a Truth Greater than Themselves. Recreate, Rewrite History all you want, it does not stop reality from being evidence against Corruption and wrong intent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hospitals do not have to comply if...

again, lying through omission is propaganda by another name.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have a point here? Did I say that all hospitals are required to comply with the law?

I didn't think so. The guy was complaining about people using emergency rooms and not paying.

I asked midacn5, now I will ask you.

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

All hospitals? Anyone? Really??

Didn't Dante just explain that it isn't all hospitals in an attempt to trip me up?

To be clear here, the complaint is about people who use emergency rooms without paying. That was enabled by the EMTALA signed by Reagan in 1985. Do you, or do you not support that law?

If you do, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay. You also lose the only justification you have for Obamacare.

 

[Liability]

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?



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

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?

It is a tax. But that's not for the Court to declare when the Legislative Branch, after due deliberation, chose to label it a "penalty."

But even if the judicial activism involved in that re-packaging were legitimately a part of the SCOTUS' job description, the legal "reasoning" that followed was a clusterfuck and fundamentally dishonest. It's not a penalty, it's a tax, he said. Ok. Let's say that's correct. Then why isn't it the KIND of tax that requires apportionment? He said it wasn't but his "explanation" for why it's some "other" kind of tax is hard to find.

And, if it's a tax, then why didn't the anti-injunction law prevent it from being adjudicated at all (since the law says that until a tax has been paid, a litigant cannot be heard in court to complain about some future hypothetical "injury")? CJ Roberts would have us believe it's not THAT kind of tax, either. Why not?

Worse yet, to claim that Congress is permitted to do this shit, under the authority of the federal Constitutional taxation authority, effectively says that there is nothing that they cannot reach under that authority. So the quaint old concept of enumerated powers goes OUT the fucking window.

How the fuck does THAT make any sense at all? Much less, how can it be seen as anything a conservative wouldn't be angry about?

If you libs had any principles, some of you (or to be fair, MORE of you) would be pretty alarmed by this development, too. It is simply wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you have a point here? Did I say that all hospitals are required to comply with the law?

I didn't think so. The guy was complaining about people using emergency rooms and not paying.

I asked midacn5, now I will ask you.

Do you support the federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay? If so, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay.

All hospitals? Anyone? Really??

Didn't Dante just explain that it isn't all hospitals in an attempt to trip me up?

To be clear here, the complaint is about people who use emergency rooms without paying. That was enabled by the EMTALA signed by Reagan in 1985. Do you, or do you not support that law?

If you do, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay. You also lose the only justification you have for Obamacare.

I wanted you to admit implicitly that Dante tripped you up. Continue, please.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All hospitals? Anyone? Really??

Didn't Dante just explain that it isn't all hospitals in an attempt to trip me up?

To be clear here, the complaint is about people who use emergency rooms without paying. That was enabled by the EMTALA signed by Reagan in 1985. Do you, or do you not support that law?

If you do, you can't complain to me about the fact that people show up at emergency rooms and can't pay. You also lose the only justification you have for Obamacare.

I wanted you to admit implicitly that Dante tripped you up. Continue, please.

You wanted me to admit something that didn't happen? Why not get me to admit that the moon landings were fake then?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dante tripped you up. He made you admit that "all" was really a "most", instead. And I will let you have the final world on this point, so you can "Continue, please."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dante tripped you up. He made you admit that "all" was really a "most", instead. Continue, please.

I never said it was all, and I was responding to someone who was complaining about people using ERs and not paying. You are just upset because I destroyed your supposedly irrefutable argument in support of Obamacare. That forces you to the default of claiming a victory out of thin air.

 

[Liability]

Dante tripped you up. He made you admit that "all" was really a "most", instead. Continue, please.

Acknowledging the difference between a universal truth and a more limited assertion is not tripping anybody up.

Had there been some effort to say that it was "all?"

All men are mortal.

All mortal beings die.

Jakey is a fraud.

Therefore, Jakey is hostile to logic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?



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

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?

1) It is a tax. But that's not for the Court to declare when the Legislative Branch, after due deliberation, chose to label it a "penalty."

2) But even if the judicial activism involved in that re-packaging were legitimately a part of the SCOTUS' job description, the legal "reasoning" that followed was a clusterfuck and fundamentally dishonest. It's not a penalty, it's a tax, he said. Ok. Let's say that's correct. Then why isn't it the KIND of tax that requires apportionment? He said it wasn't but his "explanation" for why it's some "other" kind of tax is hard to find.

1) 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."

2) pages 18 -19 of the pdf file (page 12 -13 of decision): Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat it as such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functions like a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congress may not, for example, expand its power under the Taxing Clause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause's constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a 'tax.' [see Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.; Department of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch]

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act, however, are creatures of Congress's own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence of Congress's intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described 'taxes' even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-Injunction act applies to 'Child Labor Tax' struck down as exceeding Congress's taxing power in Drexel Furniture).

Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction act. For example, 26 U. S. C. section 6671(a) provides that "any reference in this title to 'tax' imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by" subchapter 68B are thus treated as taxes under Title 26, shall also be 'deemed' to apply to the individual mandate.

Amicus attempts to show that Congress did render the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to the individual mandate, albeit by a more circuitous route. Section 5000A(g)(1) specifies that the penalty for not complying with the mandate "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68." Assessable penalties in subchapter 68B, in turn, "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes," section 6671(a). According to amicus, by directing that the penalty be "assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes," section 5000A(g)(1) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.

The Government disagrees. It argues that section 5000A(g) is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same "methodology and procedures" to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for United States 32-33 (quoting Seven-Sky, 661 F. 3d, at 11).

We think the Government has the better reading....

--- so liability, where do you disagree and why? ---------------------

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Amicus curiae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia