The Logic of Justice Roberts

[American_Jihad]

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

 

[MuadDib]

I hope it works, 'cause if Obamacare sticks, we're fucked!

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

I hope it works, 'cause if Obamacare sticks, we're fucked!

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...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Rewrites A Law That Should Have Been Overturned - Investors.com

There is speculation that Roberts sided with the justices on the left because he didn't want his to be the court that struck down a president's signature legislation and upset what he sees as a collegial relationship between the branches of the government. If so, he is not a man equipped with the proper temperament to be a Supreme Court justice, much less chief justice.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Logic of Justice Roberts

7/1/12 By Arnold Cusmariu...


...
Read more: Articles: The Logic of Justice Roberts

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

Rewriting a law is not the use of logic. It is an overstep of the Courts power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rewriting a law is not the use of logic. It is an overstep of the Courts power.

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

fail

read the decision if you can...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Rewriting a law is not the use of logic. It is an overstep of the Courts power.

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

fail

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

 

[midcan5]

"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/

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rewriting a law is not the use of logic. It is an overstep of the Courts power.

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

fail

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

The Court cited precedent and more in it's ruling. Roberts wrote that Congress called a tax a penalty. He stated why Congress can't do this and he used a pretty conservative argument for it. Roberts cited cases and examples whereas you offer only idiocies.

read the ruling and attempt to refute any part of it with a link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

or just stfu

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

fail

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

The Court cited precedent and more in it's ruling. Roberts wrote that Congress called a tax a penalty. He stated why Congress can't do this and he used a pretty conservative argument for it. Roberts cited cases and examples whereas you offer only idiocies.

read the ruling and attempt to refute any part of it with a link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

or just stfu

Says the big government dupe.

I'll wait until something you disagree with is reinterpreted by the court and gauge your reaction although I already know what it will be.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

The Court cited precedent and more in it's ruling. Roberts wrote that Congress called a tax a penalty. He stated why Congress can't do this and he used a pretty conservative argument for it. Roberts cited cases and examples whereas you offer only idiocies.

read the ruling and attempt to refute any part of it with a link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

or just stfu

Says the big government dupe.

I'll wait until something you disagree with is reinterpreted by the court and gauge your reaction although I already know what it will be.

stupid, Roberts did NOT reinterpret anything,. The Government asked the Court to view the payment as a tax. read the ruling

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Court cited precedent and more in it's ruling. Roberts wrote that Congress called a tax a penalty. He stated why Congress can't do this and he used a pretty conservative argument for it. Roberts cited cases and examples whereas you offer only idiocies.

read the ruling and attempt to refute any part of it with a link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

or just stfu

Says the big government dupe.

I'll wait until something you disagree with is reinterpreted by the court and gauge your reaction although I already know what it will be.

stupid, Roberts did NOT reinterpret anything,. The Government asked the Court to view the payment as a tax. read the ruling

The fucking government should not be telling the court how to interpret bills you fucking idiot.

 

[Claudette]

Well personally I think Roberts did just fine.

He gave Barry a big headache and he gave Romney and the GOP a big gift.

Romney has already said that if elected he will go about getting Obamacare repealed.

That will make a good portion of the American people quite happy. Me included.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Says the big government dupe.

I'll wait until something you disagree with is reinterpreted by the court and gauge your reaction although I already know what it will be.

stupid, Roberts did NOT reinterpret anything,. The Government asked the Court to view the payment as a tax. read the ruling

The fucking government should not be telling the court how to interpret bills you fucking idiot.

Huh? are you really this stupid?

 

[American_Jihad]

“Now the American people will have the final decision and I’m confident they’ll give us the votes to repeal it.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The Court cited precedent and more in it's ruling. Roberts wrote that Congress called a tax a penalty. He stated why Congress can't do this and he used a pretty conservative argument for it. Roberts cited cases and examples whereas you offer only idiocies.

read the ruling and attempt to refute any part of it with a link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

or just stfu

Says the big government dupe.

I'll wait until something you disagree with is reinterpreted by the court and gauge your reaction although I already know what it will be.

The problem is the right’s opposition to the Healthcare Cases ruling is partisan, not legal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Court cited precedent and more in it's ruling. Roberts wrote that Congress called a tax a penalty. He stated why Congress can't do this and he used a pretty conservative argument for it. Roberts cited cases and examples whereas you offer only idiocies.

read the ruling and attempt to refute any part of it with a link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

or just stfu

Says the big government dupe.

I'll wait until something you disagree with is reinterpreted by the court and gauge your reaction although I already know what it will be.

The problem is the right’s opposition to the Healthcare Cases ruling is partisan, not legal.

yes.

very few people even attempted to deny the premises here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ice-roberts-versus-right-wing-ideologues.html

 

[Big Fitz]

I forget... was Jim Crow repealed?