I respectfully disagree. As someone already posted, he affirmed to all that the SCOTUS really does take the 10th seriously and no POTUS or Congress can **** with that.
No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.
Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.
And he doubletalked like a liberal ************ to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."
If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.
If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.
Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.
It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.
I respectfully disagree. As someone already posted, he affirmed to all that the SCOTUS really does take the 10th seriously and no POTUS or Congress can **** with that.
No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.
Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.
And he doubletalked like a liberal ************ to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."
If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.
If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.
Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.
It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.
He limited, albeit slightly, that abomination of the Commerce Clause.
He ensured that this abomination of an act will go back to where it was fucked up - Congress, and a different Congress at that.
He validated what the opposition has been saying for some time - Obama and the Dems are snake oil salesmen.
And, I didn't realize this until today, that abomination of an act actually did originate in the House as an HR for housing of vets. They completely scratched that and substituted this shit act in its place, in an HR.
Now, I totally agree that the principle of taxing individuals for just being alive is wrong, and he should have gone further in that. Unfortunately, and it seems to me, that he did all he could within the existing law.
And, I am loving that this self-proclaimed 'constitutional scholar' got his fraudulent ass kicked on that subject matter.
