The Logic of Justice Roberts

Discussion in 'Politics' started by American_Jihad, Jul 2, 2012.

  1. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,666
    Thanks Received:
    1,909
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,292
    The Logic of Justice Roberts

    7/1/12 By Arnold Cusmariu

    Read more: Articles: The Logic of Justice Roberts

    Edited - theDoc


    I did not post the whole article, I left this part OUT!

    Roderick M. Chisholm (1916-1999) taught philosophy at Brown University for many years. His methods turn out to be relevant to the recent Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, clearing the air and leading to a productive response.

    Chisholm's work dispels the popular notion that obscurity comes with the territory in philosophy. If his books and articles are difficult, which they can be, it's not because one can't tell what's going on or why it matters. Chisholm would spell everything out in great detail, which required patience and discipline to work through.

    In class he was the same. He would write an argument on the blackboard in chalk, drawing each letter slowly and carefully and then stand aside to wait for comments, eraser at the ready. His logic was impeccable so the only thing left if you didn't accept his conclusion was to question one or more premises.

    One day a student evidently unaware of this rule raised his hand and made a five-minute speech. The rest of us chuckled but Chisholm waited patiently until the fellow was done, occasionally fiddling with the chalk. When the guy finally ran out of steam, Chisholm replied as he pointed at the blackboard, "Which premise are you denying?"

    ---

    Read more: Articles: The Logic of Justice Roberts
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  2. MuadDib
    Offline

    MuadDib He's called The Stig

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    962
    Thanks Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +258
    I hope it works, 'cause if Obamacare sticks, we're fucked!
     
  3. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    If this is true, and this really is the case and limitation on the commerce clause et all nailing down that issue, an act of congress signed into law by President Romney repealing it would be the best solution for this nation. The precedent limiting the taxation and commerce clauses would be in place for all future generations to say 'nope' to unlimited power and scope of these two clauses.

    I don't know whether I believe that or not, but it sounds too good to hope for thanks to the linguini spined RINOs and beltway establishment bastards who can screw this up still and snach defeat from the jaws of victory.
     
  4. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,302
    Thanks Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,314
    Truth be told, Obama care is not going anywhere and I have no doubt that no one will truly challenge it. Better get use to the new way of doing things...

    :(
     
  5. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,762
    Thanks Received:
    4,494
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,085
    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Rewrites A Law That Should Have Been Overturned - Investors.com


     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    :cuckoo:

    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....

    ---

    the above is from the opinion. I also agree the Government had the better reading :cool:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  7. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,762
    Thanks Received:
    4,494
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,085
    Rewriting a law is not the use of logic. It is an overstep of the Courts power.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    :lmao:

    not one word was rewritten. the text of the law has NOT changed.

    fail

    read the decision if you can...
     
  9. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,762
    Thanks Received:
    4,494
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,085
    No they just decided to call something that was not a tax a tax. Same result as rewriting the law.

    It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to reinterpret law but rather to rule on the law as written.

    At this point anything can be justified by the SCOTUS as legal if they merely reinterpret the words in a law to their liking.

    Just because you agree with this unprecedented move does not make it OK.

    We'll see how you react when something you don't favor is reinterpreted by the court
     
  10. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,787
    Thanks Received:
    2,366
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,299
    "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."

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/opinion/balkin-health-care/index.html
    and
    http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/

    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page