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

[SniperFire]

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

I believe I am threading with a retard.

 

[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.

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

Thats not talking points.... its fact.

 

[R.D.]

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.

From what I can gather, even though Obama, the administration and Liberals in congress continually lied about it not being a tax. They were wise enough not to purjur themselves.

If it passed as they wished they would continue with the lie. Even now the left here are pretending it was a tax all along. How easily led they are

 

[The Infidel]

That does not answer the question.

because there is no logic there

I believe I am threading with a retard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That does not answer the question.

because there is no logic there

I believe I am threading with a retard.

He's obamastupid.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

.

I'd give Dante a break, he's obviously paid to promote anything and everything Obama.

There's no way he's this this much of a parrot without getting something for it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"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.

Now we do need some hope and a lot of change.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

I'd give Dante a break, he's obviously paid to promote anything and everything Obama.

There's no way he's this this much of a parrot without getting something for it.

I'm beginning to believe the same thing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

.

I'd give Dante a break, he's obviously paid to promote anything and everything Obama.

There's no way he's this this much of a parrot without getting something for it.

unlike you, some of us admit we have no lives.




you take yourself waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously.

 

[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.

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

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality of the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

 

[PredFan]

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..!

Except that it isn't brand new. They have had that power for a long time now.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Thats not talking points.... its fact.

"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...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality o the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

why do you keep making things up?

I thought Obama wrote the law and Congress passed it? Isn't that why you people labelled it Obamacare, and not Pelosicare?

 

[PredFan]

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.

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Listening]

is it time for mass suicide?

Is the left planning something ?

They'll screw that up too.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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 completely disagree with you but you post is intelligent and well reasoned - unusual qualities here. (hence the thanks)

I think ObamaCare IS UnConstitutional and also very crappy.
But I'm not a USSC judge so darn.
I don't see ObamaCare causing the ruination of the economy, the country, puppies and so on. I just see it as not solving any of the problems HCR was supposed to address i.e. affordibility, coverage and unethical practices by insurance companies.
Premiums have gone and and will continue to do so. Coverages have gone down. Insurance companies are still in control of the whole system. Nothing solved.

 

[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.

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

Far smarter and successful lawyers argued ACA/Obamacare was unConstitutional.

 

[Listening]

I'd give Dante a break, he's obviously paid to promote anything and everything Obama.

There's no way he's this this much of a parrot without getting something for it.

My guess is that Chris, TM, & Blackballs give it to him every night....electronically.

 

[WillowTree]

is it time for mass suicide?

Is the left planning something ?

They'll screw that up too.

 

[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.

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.

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued next on behalf of the federal government – and that’s when the fireworks began.* Verrilli began laying out the government’s legalistic position that the ACA penalty is a “tax” for purposes of Congressional power, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, when Justice Alito cut him off.* “General Verrilli,” he said, “today you’re arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you’re going to be back and you’ll be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”* Amid laughter in the courtroom, Alito asked:* “Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”* Verrilli said no.
Day One: Has All This Fuss Been For Nothing? « AHA Supreme Court Update