Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
- Thread starter
- #61
too funny
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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
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
Dante did not read his own post before he started using third person.
Read your own post, everything after "Amicus argues:" is from the amicus brief.
We need some background music here.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.
Shut the fuck up.
They were sworn to support the Constitution and they failed miserably. Always looking for pretexts to aggrandize the power of the federal government.
They are a bunch of crooked motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
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.
yes. It clearly says so. Of course I read it..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
Dante did not read his own post before he started using third person.
Read your own post, everything after "Amicus argues:" is from the amicus brief.
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.
Nope. reading and comprehension is most definitely not your strong suit.
the shared responsibility payment is a penalty in the law's text. The penalty functions as a tax. The Court was asked to view it that way for constitutional purposes.
The Court is usually asked to interpret the meaning of laws. It's been their job for a few hundred years.
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.
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? ---------------------
because Windbag misread and led the way.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.
Nope. reading and comprehension is most definitely not your strong suit.
the shared responsibility payment is a penalty in the law's text. The penalty functions as a tax. The Court was asked to view it that way for constitutional purposes.
The Court is usually asked to interpret the meaning of laws. It's been their job for a few hundred years.
You've had a number of people to tell you that you didn't comprehend what your OP link was saying try again
We need some background music here.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.
Shut the fuck up.
They were sworn to support the Constitution and they failed miserably. Always looking for pretexts to aggrandize the power of the federal government.
They are a bunch of crooked motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFvRvSxsW-I&feature=related]Isaac Hayes: Shaft (High Quality) - YouTube[/ame]
Isaac Hayes: Shaft (High Quality)
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.
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? ---------------------
quantum -- uhm...errrr...ahhhh...doh