Sorry my fellow conservatives, I side with the SCOTUS' decision.

[Dr.Drock]

Yeah, lockstep with them or they'll run you over. Fucking lemmings.

Whether we lockstep with them or not we all get run over.

Those of us who are against statists like Obama and those who support him are equally harmed by Obamacare.

A tax for NOT buying a product, if that's not insanity to you than you're a statist.

I think we can all agree that it's insane.

The poor will be hurt the most by these tax increases, Big pharma, Big drug companies and big insurance companies who own DC LOVE Obamacare. The burden of cost control is shifting even more from the free market to bought off gov't politicians and bureacrats who are closely tied to the lobbyists of these companies.

Agreed, but the fault lies with the voters who voted obama into office and not with the SCOTUS.

Can't see something much different happening with McCain in office, or if Romney wins for that matter.

These same corporations and lobbyists who own the dem party own the rep party too.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

And you don't feel completely deceived by Obama who insisted this was not a tax?

"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama's political arguments aside, you're just a frustrated loser

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A friend's friend gave him the following analysis which he then passed on to me, and I found it rather interesting. All I can say about its author is he's a conservative with a background in law and tax accounting.

"Justice Roberts is brilliant. I believe his siding with the liberals in the Obamacare decision was for the following reasons:

1. Calling the penalty a tax is reasonable since money extracted from a citizen under duress and absent a quid pro quo is a tax. This decision enables two shots at overturning Obamacare as enumerated next.

2. Sustaining Obamacare removes a victim issue for the Dems to campaign on this year and gives the GOP an opportunity to present a positive view of healthcare changes. Done right, a new president and Congress will make the changes.

3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.

Leaving Obamcare in place also allows the HHS mandate for all employers to provide birth control, etc. to continue to be challenged under the First Amendment by the Bishops, Notre Dame, etc."

reality check!!!


except it was the Obama administration that argued the Court should view the mandate as a tax.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

 

[PredFan]

A friend's friend gave him the following analysis which he then passed on to me, and I found it rather interesting. All I can say about its author is he's a conservative with a background in law and tax accounting.

"Justice Roberts is brilliant. I believe his siding with the liberals in the Obamacare decision was for the following reasons:

1. Calling the penalty a tax is reasonable since money extracted from a citizen under duress and absent a quid pro quo is a tax. This decision enables two shots at overturning Obamacare as enumerated next.

2. Sustaining Obamacare removes a victim issue for the Dems to campaign on this year and gives the GOP an opportunity to present a positive view of healthcare changes. Done right, a new president and Congress will make the changes.

3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.

Leaving Obamcare in place also allows the HHS mandate for all employers to provide birth control, etc. to continue to be challenged under the First Amendment by the Bishops, Notre Dame, etc."

Very interesting take on it. Thanks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

And you don't feel completely deceived by Obama who insisted this was not a tax?

"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama's political arguments aside, you're just a frustrated loser

Fail it was argue as a tax and ruled a tax so it's a tax. meaning it will be easier to repeal. not needing a majority to do it.

 

[PredFan]

Whether we lockstep with them or not we all get run over.

Those of us who are against statists like Obama and those who support him are equally harmed by Obamacare.

A tax for NOT buying a product, if that's not insanity to you than you're a statist.

I think we can all agree that it's insane.

The poor will be hurt the most by these tax increases, Big pharma, Big drug companies and big insurance companies who own DC LOVE Obamacare. The burden of cost control is shifting even more from the free market to bought off gov't politicians and bureacrats who are closely tied to the lobbyists of these companies.

Agreed, but the fault lies with the voters who voted obama into office and not with the SCOTUS.

Can't see something much differen't happening with McCain in office, or if Romney wins for that matter.

These same corporations and lobbyists who own the dem party own the rep party too.

McCain wouldn't have done it, the same way Bush didn't. OTOH, Romney might not because once he's POTUS, he doesn't have to and few politicians are willing to give up power and tax revenues.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think we can all agree that it's insane.



Agreed, but the fault lies with the voters who voted obama into office and not with the SCOTUS.

Can't see something much differen't happening with McCain in office, or if Romney wins for that matter.

These same corporations and lobbyists who own the dem party own the rep party too.

McCain wouldn't have done it, the same way Bush didn't. OTOH, Romney might not because once he's POTUS, he doesn't have to and few politicians are willing to give up power and tax revenues.

Depends how you look at it, both Bush and Obama have increased gov'ts grip on healthcare whether it be mandates, regulations, bureacracies, departments, spending, etc.

 

[The Infidel]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Thanks to this decision the Congress can mandate you to do anything they want you to... PERIOD!!

ITS A BRAND NEW LIMITLESS TAX AUTHORITY..!

 

[SniperFire]

3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.

I didn't read the ruling, and but why would Roberts not use this logic to rule Obamacare unConstitutional in the first place?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And you don't feel completely deceived by Obama who insisted this was not a tax?

"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama's political arguments aside, you're just a frustrated loser

Fail it was argue as a tax and ruled a tax so it's a tax. meaning it will be easier to repeal. not needing a majority to do it.

The ACA was not ruled a tax. the ACA is law of the land. you still having issues with reading and comprehension?

The mandate imposes a tax.

good luck with your magical thinking

 

[The Infidel]

And you don't feel completely deceived by Obama who insisted this was not a tax?

"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama's political arguments aside, you're just a frustrated loser

Fail it was argue as a tax and ruled a tax so it's a tax. meaning it will be easier to repeal. not needing a majority to do it.

One glimmer of hope... teenie as it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.

I didn't read the ruling, and but why would Roberts not use this logic to rule Obamacare unConstitutional in the first place?

because the Government specifically asked the Court to view the mandate as a tax


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

 

[Liability]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Wrong.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Commerce Clause.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I don't even care if it is a tax, they were absolutely wrong to re-write the "law" to re-label what Congress itself studiously refused to do. THOSE jackoffs called it a penalty, and the activist CJ has no business "interpreting" their clear words when there never was any ambiguity in what they meant.

PLUS if it is a tax then it should be a tax for ALL purposes, not just for some. And if a tax for ALL purposes, then it is a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law which would mean that the case is not even yet justiciable.

AND if it's a tax, then it's a tax that requires apportionment. It has no apportionment and thus violates the Constitution. It should have been voided on that basis, too.

The Justices didn't just misinterpret the Constitution, they pretended that anything required interpretation in order to justify a fucked up decision to keep that stupid law alive.

A very bad ruling. Completely indefensible. Shameful in fact.

 

[SniperFire]

3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.

I didn't read the ruling, and but why would Roberts not use this logic to rule Obamacare unConstitutional in the first place?

because the Government specifically asked the Court to view the mandate as a tax

That does not answer the question.

 

[R.D.]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Thanks to this decision the Congress can mandate you to do anything they want you to... PERIOD!!

ITS A BRAND NEW LIMITLESS TAX AUTHORITY..!

.


They always could. If they used that play, it would never have gotten off the ground. He saw through that and put it back on congresses back. Now that no one can hide the fact that it is a penalty tax it will very likey get the 51 votes needed to overturn.

 

[SniperFire]

Are there actually any precedents that limit the Federal government's taxing authority?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Wrong.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Commerce Clause.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I don't even care if it is a tax, they were absolutely wrong to re-write the "law" to re-label what Congress itself studiously refused to do. THOSE jackoffs called it a penalty, and the activist CJ has no business "interpreting" their clear words when there never was any ambiguity in what they meant.

PLUS if it is a tax then it should be a tax for ALL purposes, not just for some. And if a tax for ALL purposes, then it is a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law which would mean that the case is not even yet justiciable.

AND if it's a tax, then it's a tax that requires apportionment. It has no apportionment and thus violates the Constitution. It should have been voided on that basis, too.

The Justices didn't just misinterpret the Constitution, they pretended that anything required interpretation in order to justify a fucked up decision to keep that stupid law alive.

A very bad ruling. Completely indefensible. Shameful in fact.

No one rewrote the law.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama Admin argued mandate must be viewed as a tax...

"we know the administration thinks the mandate is justifiable as a tax, because that's exactly what they argued to the Supreme Court, as well as all the lower courts that heard the case. "

Obama Administration Argues to Supreme Court that ObamaCare's Mandate Is a Tax, Tells Reporters That It's Not a Tax - Hit & Run : Reason.com

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


poor liabilty, throwing around talking points and spin in place of factually based arguments

 

[Contumacious]

"in pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... The chief justice is using one of the government's arguments before the court.

Obama's political arguments aside, you're just a frustrated loser

fail it was argue as a tax and ruled a tax so it's a tax. Meaning it will be easier to repeal. Not needing a majority to do it.

the aca was not ruled a tax. The aca is law of the land. You still having issues with reading and comprehension?

The mandate imposes a tax.

Good luck with your magical thinking

ok then, sit on the couch , eat chitlins, smoke, get sick. We'll take care of the bill.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't read the ruling, and but why would Roberts not use this logic to rule Obamacare unConstitutional in the first place?

because the Government specifically asked the Court to view the mandate as a tax

That does not answer the question.

because there is no logic there

 

[Article 15]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

I can agree with much that you posted, except for "will ruin the economy and healthcare".
Actually, the cost of healthcare is ruining the country and has been for decades. I've seen/heard many an economist that have stated that the outrageous cost of heathcare in the US will cause huge economic problems form the US in the near future.
Obamacare isn't going to help and any plan the GOP has put on the table wouldn't do much if anything either. This is where Big Money from the healthcare industry towards our elected officials has come into play. Washington has sold out the general population.
In the US we pay about double of what every other country in the world pays! The US is about the only capitalistic developed country that doesn't negotiate with the healthcare industry,the cost of their services and products. It frigen ridiculous! And it wouldn't cost the taxpayer anything!
Secondly, most physicians favor a blend of public and private healthcare,,ala Single Option. it would lower the cost for everyone and offer less regulation regarding procedures/paperwork for the healthcare industry.
Both are win-win for the American people, so naturally, neither will happen because of the fact that Washington in full of political whores and those who profit from lack of leadership, from top-to-bottom, control those whores.