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

[Procrustes Stretched]

too funny

 

[Contumacious]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

Did Dainty not read his own quote? Or is it just that Dainty does not comprehend what he reads?

 

[Intense]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

We need some background music here.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFvRvSxsW-I&feature=related]Isaac Hayes: Shaft (High Quality) - YouTube[/ame]
Isaac Hayes: Shaft (High Quality)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

yes. It clearly says so. Of course I read it..

unlike you I didn't cut and copy anything. I read and then typed the words. You should try it sometime. The full context of things is usually lost on people who cut and paste, and regurgitate talking points.

fool -- you still don't get it. You thought I was saying something else because you are used to slinging shit back and forth. Now you have to read a post in it's full context and you assume wrongly?

oh, poor windypooh

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

You've had a number of people to tell you that you didn't comprehend what your OP link was saying try again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

because Windbag misread and led the way.

read the post and it is evident what was meant. Poor windy assumed something that wasn't true. Still does, trying to avoid looking like the wingnut you all are


---


Congress has the Affordable Care Act requiring a mandated shared responsibility payment. The shared responsibility payment is called a penalty in the text of the act (ACA). The Act has this penalty functioning as a tax. Roberts agreed the Congress can call the payment whatever it wants to call it in the text. But Roberts ruled that for constitutional purposes, a tax cannot be viewed as anything other than a tax.

Allowing Congress to call a tax a penalty for constitutional purposes would allow Congress to claim unprecedented powers outside the US Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

We need some background music here.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFvRvSxsW-I&feature=related]Isaac Hayes: Shaft (High Quality) - YouTube[/ame]
Isaac Hayes: Shaft (High Quality)

Very appropriate music indeed. That is exactly what we got. Unfortunately the populace is narcotized. So they won't notice the effect.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[youtube]I1pPFlcGav4[/youtube]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

we're back?

and a bunch of people followed into the imbecile fold like the blind sheep they are.