Supreme Court. Individual mandate

[JakeStarkey]

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli-
cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering
that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,
“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-
stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.

Holy fuck, this is what substitutes as legal reasoning by Roberts?

Roberts perceives his duty to try to make sure legislation comports with the Constitution. This is exactly what he did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli-
cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering
that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,
“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-
stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.

Holy fuck, this is what substitutes as legal reasoning by Roberts?

Roberts perceives his duty to try to make sure legislation comports with the Constitution. This is exactly what he did.

Jaks starkey has a black label in his pocket or are they the same poster?

 

[JakeStarkey]

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli-
cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering
that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,
“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-
stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.

Holy fuck, this is what substitutes as legal reasoning by Roberts?

Roberts perceives his duty to try to make sure legislation comports with the Constitution. This is exactly what he did.

Jaks starkey has a black label in his pocket or are they the same poster?

Have the mods check, and then we will all know the latest, stupidest thing you have done here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Roberts perceives his duty to try to make sure legislation comports with the Constitution. This is exactly what he did.

Jaks starkey has a black label in his pocket or are they the same poster?

Have the mods check, and then we will all know the latest, stupidest thing you have done here.

Maybe they should.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jaks starkey has a black label in his pocket or are they the same poster?

Have the mods check, and then we will all know the latest, stupidest thing you have done here.

Maybe they should.

If you don't have them check, then you just called yourself a liar. Check or condemn yourself a liar: your only choices.

 

[Intense]

Jake has no Socks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who understand that American history continues past 1803, yes, the bill is constitutional.

By supporting Roberts you can never again raise an argument against judicial activism, you lose any right to call anyone on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The wailing continues, I see.

Didn't you hate judicial activism before you supported it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Devils' advocate here. According to some pundits, Roberts's CONSERVATIVE principles include judicial restraint. What he basically said is "This may be a piece of shit. Our job is not to determine if it is a piece of shit. Our job is to determine if it is constitutional. Congress has the power to tax. If you don't like the tax, replace Congress."

Charles Payne suggested that Roberts was "crazy like a fox". I tend to agree.

I would agree IF the ObamaCare Law had been passed AS a tax.

But it deliberately was not.

Congress itself labeled it a "penalty." They had previously contemplated calling it a tax, but rejected that option. And their rejection was VERY deliberate. It was no oversight and not a "mistake."

It is NOT for the SCOTUS to alter the WORDS chosen by Congress to force fit a required "finding" into one of their opinions in order to "salvage" a law. The CHOICE made BY Congress should have been scrupulously honored. Instead, CJ Roberts is GUILTY himself of blatant activism by re-writing the legislation and by straining to "interpret" clear words which required no interpretation. That aint exactly "conservative."

If he had to strain and bend and twist like a damn pretzel to reach such a conclusion, as Roberts did, then that SHOULD have been a clue that he had strayed FAR off the reservation. And if it WERE a "tax" despite the carefully chosen words of Congress, then why was it allowed to stand when it was an apportioned tax, why was it allowed to stand when it originated in the fucking Senate and why did the Court reach ANY decision on it when the anti-injunction law forbids such a thing until someone has PAID that tax (which, obviously, nobody yet has or could have)?

A fully dishonest "opinion" by the CJ. Absolutely shameful.

Have you read the opinion?

Twice, so far.

You?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you read the opinion?

Have you?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts did right in saving Obamacare - NY Daily News

Of course not, the entire thing (all opinions) is almost 200 pages long.

If you could tell me on which page it is that they change the words of the law, that'd be great.

It takes less than an hour to read, why haven't you read it?

By the way, it rewrites the law on page 1, so my guess is you haven't even looked at it. interesting that a person who challenges people to read doesn't even bother to look at the first page.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For those who understand that American history continues past 1803, yes, the bill is constitutional.

By supporting Roberts you can never again raise an argument against judicial activism, you lose any right to call anyone on it.

You are not a rule maker of any sort, son.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a rule maker of any sort.

Do you even know what judicial activism is? Really?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who understand that American history continues past 1803, yes, the bill is constitutional.

By supporting Roberts you can never again raise an argument against judicial activism, you lose any right to call anyone on it.

You are not a rule maker of any sort, son.

Is the fact that Roberts essentially rewrote Obamacare, and declared that the mandate is simultaneously not a tax, yet still is, too complicated for you? Are you aware that he actually trashed precedent to accomplish this feat of legerdemain because, up until yesterday, SCOTUS had consistently ruled that anything Congress said is a penalty is not a tax? Do you even have a brain?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are not a rule maker of any sort.

Do you even know what judicial activism is? Really?

Go ahead, define judicial activism in a way that excludes rewriting laws from the bench and creating taxes in complete violation of the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

OMG!!! Eat Shit Tea Party

We'll all be eating eating insurance industry shit for some time, apparently. Keep a toothbrush handy.

what? you don't eat insurance industry shit now?

It's not required by law. Unless we can stop idiots like you, it will be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By supporting Roberts you can never again raise an argument against judicial activism, you lose any right to call anyone on it.

You are not a rule maker of any sort, son.

Is the fact that Roberts essentially rewrote Obamacare, and declared that the mandate is simultaneously not a tax, yet still is, too complicated for you? Are you aware that he actually trashed precedent to accomplish this feat of legerdemain because, up until yesterday, SCOTUS had consistently ruled that anything Congress said is a penalty is not a tax? Do you even have a brain?

It's a tax no matter how you try to sale it that is the only way it was ruled constitutional. Do you have at least one brain cell?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We'll all be eating eating insurance industry shit for some time, apparently. Keep a toothbrush handy.

what? you don't eat insurance industry shit now?

It's not required by law. Unless we can stop idiots like you, it will be.

yes, everyone now pays for those who don't .. always have

 

[dblack]

what? you don't eat insurance industry shit now?

It's not required by law. Unless we can stop idiots like you, it will be.

yes, everyone now pays for those who don't .. always have

The most important right a consumer has in a free market is the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that they don't think is worth the money. Stripping that right from consumers makes us utterly powerless in the marketplace.

If what you want is to remove health care from the free market, than have the integrity to do it above board. Forcing us all into involuntary servitude to the insurance industry is not a 'step in the right direction'. It's a sickening sellout and everyone supporting it is culpable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By supporting Roberts you can never again raise an argument against judicial activism, you lose any right to call anyone on it.

You are not a rule maker of any sort, son.

Is the fact that Roberts essentially rewrote Obamacare, and declared that the mandate is simultaneously not a tax, yet still is, too complicated for you? Are you aware that he actually trashed precedent to accomplish this feat of legerdemain because, up until yesterday, SCOTUS had consistently ruled that anything Congress said is a penalty is not a tax? Do you even have a brain?

In other words, you don't have a clue.

Try that in any ABA law school in America and you will be sent home.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a rule maker of any sort.

Do you even know what judicial activism is? Really?

Go ahead, define judicial activism in a way that excludes rewriting laws from the bench and creating taxes in complete violation of the Constitution.

Only cretins believe that American jurisprudence ends with the first ten Amendments.