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

[bigrebnc1775]

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

I say what I am free to do not the fucking government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf page 21 of the pdf file/page 15 of the opinion

"The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits."



"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress's power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be held as a tax."

--- what is so difficult to comprehend here? -- and it is a Government argument before the court, one of two theories, not an argument made up by Roberts ---

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf page 21 of the pdf file/page 15 of the opinion

"The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits."



"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress's power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be held as a tax."

--- what is so difficult to comprehend here? -- and it is a Government argument before the court, one of two theories, not an argument made up by Roberts ---

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Dude it was ruled a tax, if it had not been ruled a tax we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

My point was all hospitals do not have to comply. All hospitals have the option of not accepting "payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program." "The federal law signed by Reagan that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay" only applies to hospitals that participate -- choose (free market?) to accept the Medicare rules. Hospitals are free to refuse to participate on principle, to accept government monies.

The wingnut windbagh then poses a question and answers it too. Odd? Most people would think so.

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.

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

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."

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.

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?"

Lying through omission is propaganda by another name.

Here is the fact: Reagan signed a law that requiring ALL hospital emergency rooms that participate in the Medicare program to treat anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay.

People in need of emergency care have always showed up at hospitals. What changed is hospitals that participate in the Medicare program, who previously had turned people away and sent them to City/County/State hospitals, now had to treat ALL people instead of shifting many -- during sometimes dire emergencies -- to public hospitals.

Of course anyone who supports the law Reagan signed should complain (but not to a blowhardo like Windbagh) about people, showing up in emergency rooms and not being able to afford the emergency medical treatment their lives depend on. What kind of a society do people want to live in?

and Dante did not trip windydoosh up, wind tripped itself up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Since when is SCOTUS in the business of rewriting laws?

That's the real issue here that you left wing sheep don't seem to understand.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

--- what is so difficult to comprehend here? -- and it is a Government argument before the court, one of two theories, not an argument made up by Roberts ---

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Dude it was ruled a tax, if it had not been ruled a tax we would not be having this conversation.

The Government asked it be ruled a tax. So? It was ruled a tax, and if you bother to read the opinion instead of shout imbecilities, you'd be able to argue against the merits of the case, instead of throwing partisan ideological tantrums.

 

[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

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.

What!!! So Reagan is the blame? That made little sense. Does it not strike you as just a bit curious why people show up and can't pay? Or even why in the wealthiest of nations coverage is not provided at a fair price to all?

FactCheck.org : How Much Is the Obamacare ‘Tax’?

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Asinine assertion and you know it.

The reality is that we each believe we have the correct idea about what the constitution says and means. Feeling that a SCOTUS judge agrees with your general take on the constitution and then seeing them rule in a fashion that is completely out of sync with that belief is going to make you feel like that judge has betrayed you and your ideology. It is not partisan to think so. Partisan hacks are so because they will excuse or support one assertion from one party but then attack and destroy the exact same assertion from the other party.

Many here are not criticizing Roberts on that basis. They are criticizing him because he held that the government can, in fact, compel you to purchase a product from a company through penalty. It is a valid criticism in the same manner that those on the left scream to high heaven about the court when the citizens united case is mentioned. There is nothing wrong with criticizing a judge that has made a decision that you believe to be counter with the very fabric of this nation.

Now the better question would be; why do you have such a problem with people criticizing the actions of such a prominent and powerful section of our government? Our government, if nothing else, should be critically examined and criticized openly whenever you feel it has gone astray.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Asinine assertion and you know it.

1) The reality is that we each believe we have the correct idea about what the constitution says and means. Feeling that a SCOTUS judge agrees with your general take on the constitution and then seeing them rule in a fashion that is completely out of sync with that belief is going to make you feel like that judge has betrayed you and your ideology. It is not partisan to think so. Partisan hacks are so because they will excuse or support one assertion from one party but then attack and destroy the exact same assertion from the other party.

2) Many here are not criticizing Roberts on that basis. They are criticizing him because he held that the government can, in fact, compel you to purchase a product from a company through penalty. It is a valid criticism in the same manner that those on the left scream to high heaven about the court when the citizens united case is mentioned. There is nothing wrong with criticizing a judge that has made a decision that you believe to be counter with the very fabric of this nation.

3) Now the better question would be; why do you have such a problem with people criticizing the actions of such a prominent and powerful section of our government? Our government, if nothing else, should be critically examined and criticized openly whenever you feel it has gone astray.

1) Partisan politics is at play here. Ideology and Judicial philosophy are not the same thing. Ideology may mold ones Judicial philosophy, but when considering the law, ruling on cases before the Court, ruling on the merits of a case, an Ideological bias of a Justice should not overrule precedent and more. Roberts cited precedent and more. I keep posting parts of the decision and others here reply like you, ignoring the decision. Talking about feelings and betrayal, about ideological purity and partisanship over Blind Justice.

You mention partisanship of party as if that is the only form partisanship takes on.

2) Most all criticism of Roberts, here and all over the media, have been either personal attacks or attacks on Roberts' ideological impurity. As partisan as it gets.

Almost every single person here who is spouting off has either not read the decision, or is regurgitating groupspeak talking points, or both.

The mandate imposes a tax on those who go without insurance. No one is compelled to buy insurance. You may use the term induce if you wanted to be accurate and quote from Roberts. from page 4 of the pdf file: "The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation."

There is nothing wrong with criticizing a Justice. There is something wrong with demanding 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.

3) I have no problem with criticizing "the actions of such a prominent and powerful section of our government." I do it all the time. I've criticized the current government too.

you need to pay attention to what people say and do, not what you think they say and do depending upon the label you'v

 

[bigrebnc1775]

--- what is so difficult to comprehend here? -- and it is a Government argument before the court, one of two theories, not an argument made up by Roberts ---

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Dude it was ruled a tax, if it had not been ruled a tax we would not be having this conversation.

The Government asked it be ruled a tax. So? It was ruled a tax, and if you bother to read the opinion instead of shout imbecilities, you'd be able to argue against the merits of the case, instead of throwing partisan ideological tantrums.

What your saying is the supreme court can changer any law meaning because the government makes a request that they do it? Dumb ass the law was ruled as tax because it was written as a tax.

 

[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?

starting at post #1 - page #1

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude it was ruled a tax, if it had not been ruled a tax we would not be having this conversation.

The Government asked it be ruled a tax. So? It was ruled a tax, and if you bother to read the opinion instead of shout imbecilities, you'd be able to argue against the merits of the case, instead of throwing partisan ideological tantrums.

What your saying is the supreme court can changer any law meaning because the government makes a request that they do it? Dumb ass the law was ruled as tax because it was written as a tax.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Three cheers for LIFE APPOINTMENTS! This is the main reason SCOTUS Justices are free to uphold the law without influence from outside partisans. It is truly one the of the BEST features the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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? ---------------------

You just argued directly opposite of what Roberts ruled about the mandate, congratulations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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? ---------------------

You just argued directly opposite of what Roberts ruled about the mandate, congratulations.

actually, word for word (in red) it is from Roberts ruling.


Maybe you're confused? there are even links to it all...

proof yet again, that even if you read the decision, you have no clue what you have been talking about. So very FOX News of you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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? ---------------------

You just argued directly opposite of what Roberts ruled about the mandate, congratulations.

actually, word for word (in red) it is from Roberts ruling.


Maybe you're confused?

proof yet again, that even if you read the decision, you have no clue what you have been talking about. So very FOX News of you.

The posts above are proof the right wing lunacy @ usmb has no fucking clue what they are talking about. never have and never will. They are all imbeciles and idiots

Quantum:

[youtube]aicMYMLhSIw[/youtube]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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? ---------------------

You just argued directly opposite of what Roberts ruled about the mandate, congratulations.

actually, word for word (in red) it is from Roberts ruling.


Maybe you're confused? there are even links to it all...

proof yet again, that even if you read the decision, you have no clue what you have been talking about. So very FOX News of you.

Actually, it wasn't. That part was Roberts quoting from an amicus brief that argued that any challenge to the mandate was not permissible because it is a tax and the act makes it illegal to challenge a tax before it is collected, which is exactly the opposite of what he ruled. Justices often cite arguments they disagree with to make a point.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You just argued directly opposite of what Roberts ruled about the mandate, congratulations.

actually, word for word (in red) it is from Roberts ruling.


Maybe you're confused? there are even links to it all...

proof yet again, that even if you read the decision, you have no clue what you have been talking about. So very FOX News of you.

Actually, it wasn't. That part was Roberts quoting from an amicus brief that argued that any challenge to the mandate was not permissible because it is a tax and the act makes it illegal to challenge a tax before it is collected, which is exactly the opposite of what he ruled. Justices often cite arguments they disagree with to make a point.

the amicus was part of his decision and that was not the point I was making. I linked to and quoted the COurt's decision and Roberts own words in the text.

Those are Robert's words quoting the amicus and the last line is his. D'Oh! and so is: 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."


the last line "We think the Government has the better reading...."

If you look at Dante's posts on this, he links to and uses the text. The fact that you mistook quotes as being Dante's arguments is hilarious. It was the last line with the question to liability that was the point

Hello?

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

Dante listed 1) and 2)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

actually, word for word (in red) it is from Roberts ruling.


Maybe you're confused? there are even links to it all...

proof yet again, that even if you read the decision, you have no clue what you have been talking about. So very FOX News of you.

Actually, it wasn't. That part was Roberts quoting from an amicus brief that argued that any challenge to the mandate was not permissible because it is a tax and the act makes it illegal to challenge a tax before it is collected, which is exactly the opposite of what he ruled. Justices often cite arguments they disagree with to make a point.

the amicus was part of his decision and that was not the point I was making. I linked to and quoted the COurt's decision and Roberts own words in the text.

Those are Robert's words quoting the amicus and the last line is his. D'Oh!

the last line "We think the Government has the better reading...."

If you look at Dante's posts on this, he links to and uses the text. The fact that you mistook quotes as being Dante's arguments is hilarious. It was the last line with the question to liability that was the point

Hello?

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

Yes, it was part of his decision, the part he ruled against because he decided exactly the opposite.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, it wasn't. That part was Roberts quoting from an amicus brief that argued that any challenge to the mandate was not permissible because it is a tax and the act makes it illegal to challenge a tax before it is collected, which is exactly the opposite of what he ruled. Justices often cite arguments they disagree with to make a point.

the amicus was part of his decision and that was not the point I was making. I linked to and quoted the Court's decision and Roberts own words in the text.

Those are Robert's words quoting the amicus and the last line is his. D'Oh!

the last line "We think the Government has the better reading...."

If you look at Dante's posts on this, he links to and uses the text. The fact that you mistook quotes as being Dante's arguments is hilarious. It was the last line with the question to liability that was the point

Hello?

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

Yes, it was part of his decision, the part he ruled against because he decided exactly the opposite.

read the posts slowly. Dante didn't use the amicus brief quotes to back up his argument. Dante listed more context than you are used to doing. the last part and 1) are NOT from the amicus brief either.

quit while you're in the toilet. What's left for you is the sewer