Jump to content

Scotus Upholds Hussein Health


Recommended Posts

This is also incorrect. They made both arguments during oral argument.BG, kids are covered until 26 now. One of the more popular provisions.
Taxes was a secondary fallback argument, completely separate from the Commerce argument, while both arguments were presented. It was supplied as an attempt to uphold the law on a technicality, as the court is required to use any possible interpretation that could be constitutional rather than maintaining the law on what it was actually intended to do. I just finished reading the full report and there is specific language that talks about how they accept that the point of the law isnt to be interpreted as a tax, but because it is the only way to interpret the law without violating the constitution they have to adopt that interpretation. Ill try to post specifically what I was reading from the report.I'm no law expert, and im 100% sure someone can write a 25 page essay on why it is neccessary, but this notion of being able to change your argument after your argument fails just seems a little ridiculous, like someone pleading not guilty, and when the evidence is presented, changing to not guilty by mental defect, I guess the courts have no problem with such a scenario but it just seems a bit too much.This specifically causes are problem with the supreme court, in a case of changing arguements/plea of not guilty to not guilty by mental defect, the prosecution simply has more work to prove their case, in the supreme court however there specifically is the requirement that the court MUST ignore the intentions of congress if their intention is unconstitutional and instead actively search for a way that a(any) law can be interpreted as constitutional, even if the intention of congress is to act in an unconstitutional way. It also creates a precedent that it becomes beneficial for congress to simply use a broad stroke with the commerce clause or other powers, then argue multiple vantage points in hopes that when their original intent is deemed unconstititutional, they can fall back to an interpretation that isnt remotely near their intent.You combine this with the new precendent that congress now has to authority to regulate all actions(inaction and action) of commerce and this becomes a huge power grab for congress, nearly anything can now become a "unique market" that congress needs to take over and regulate or force people to engage in commerce with.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Statute

There's a part in a certain video game where a man says SKATE OR DIE!!! and a hive of bees comes after your skater until he's either too slow and they get him, or he can gain admission to a skate ramp

The warden at Shawshank could highlight some possible downsides to that.

That's a long rambling post that pretends there is a limit on how many arguments you can make to the Supreme Court. There's not. They made both arguments. One worked on 4 people, the other worked on Roberts. They didn't "change" their argument. They argued that it should be constitutional under the Commerce Clause OR the Taxation power. Roberts didn't invent the tax argument nor did the Solicitor General invent the new argument after the old one failed. As an aside, intent, as you are describing it, is irrelevant here. Obama is still claiming it's not a tax. Personally, I found Roberts opinion to be very persuasive.Have a seance and complain to the Founding Fathers for leaving such a gaping loophole in Congress' taxation power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a long rambling post that pretends there is a limit on how many arguments you can make to the Supreme Court. There's not. They made both arguments. One worked on 4 people, the other worked on Roberts. They didn't "change" their argument. They argued that it should be constitutional under the Commerce Clause OR the Taxation power. Roberts didn't invent the tax argument nor did the Solicitor General invent the new argument after the old one failed. As an aside, intent, as you are describing it, is irrelevant here. Obama is still claiming it's not a tax. Personally, I found Roberts opinion to be very persuasive.Have a seance and complain to the Founding Fathers for leaving such a gaping loophole in Congress' taxation power.
I specifically said I understand there isnt a limit, I was more commenting on the fact that the concept of being able to change your argument when it doesnt work, has a weakness of throwing everything at the wall to hope something sticks even though the intention of the law is unconstitutional. And again, when we've now created the precedent that other things can now be compelled to purchase it becomes easier to uphold compelling unwanted purchases as you can throw as many interpretations of the law as long as they're remotely releveant to the intention of congress who is intentionally trying to make laws the constitution would not uphold face up.They argued either/or, however had both of them been accepted at constitutional you know they would have cited Commerce Clause, its very apparent that the judges agreed that the design was for this, and the Taxation power argument was a "backup plan"Having said this and reading roberts report I do agree with the supreme court decision, one quote that made the most sense in the report:It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences oftheir political choices.My issue isnt with the actual thought process behind upholding it under taxation, or their reasonings for rejecting the commerce caluse argument, but that simply the winning strategy that becomes more developed from precedent of being able to compel action and then simply throwing as many interpretations as you can(through wording of the bill or arguments made by the lawyers) Even though everyone knows the(any generic) bill is unconstituational at face value.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree that the Commerce Clause was their "original" argument but it's not like they made 15 arguments. They made two and both arguments were successful to a degree. If you just threw every argument at the wall, I think that would backfire against you.I still have not seen anyone make a good argument that Roberts was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just not correct. They WERE part of the oral arguments:Page 3:http://www.supremeco...-398-Monday.pdfFirst, Congress directed that the section 5000A penalty shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Second, Congress provided that penalties are included in taxes for assessment purposes. And, third, the section 5000A penalty bears the key indicia of a tax.And it being a tax WAS in the original law. The penalty to be paid goes to the IRS:http://www.businessw...acare-phases-in2014:—Almost everyone required to be covered by either private or government-run insurance or pay a penalty to the IRSSo, you're quite wrong. Please stop posting wrong things. Thanks.
Your correct it was in oral aurguments.Page 16JUSTICE BREYER: Now, here, Congress has nowhere used the word "tax." What it says is penalty. Moreover, this isnot in the Internal Revenue Code "but for purposes of collection."And so why is this a tax? And I know you point to certain sentences that talk about taxes within the Code -MR.LONG: Right.JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this is not attached to a tax. It is attached to a health care requirement.Okay so it's not a tax.
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Breyer. Judging by your posts, I don't think you want to live in a world where Justice Breyer (the most liberal justice BY FAR) gets to decide what things are and what things are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will agree that the Commerce Clause was their "original" argument but it's not like they made 15 arguments. They made two and both arguments were successful to a degree. If you just threw every argument at the wall, I think that would backfire against you.I still have not seen anyone make a good argument that Roberts was wrong.
It is really simple and not that complicated. The job of the court is to rule the law Constitutional or rule the law Not Constitutional. Thats not what happened Thursday. The Statute was rewritten.When the court legislates from the bench bad things happen............like Plessy v. Ferguson.
Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Breyer. Judging by your posts, I don't think you want to live in a world where Justice Breyer (the most liberal justice BY FAR) gets to decide what things are and what things are not.
LOL, I was just poking fun at the LongLiveYorke who was quoting from oral aurguments........shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, then he declared it was a tax in the original law. Under Congressional authority to tax, which tax would this alleged tax fall under?
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is really simple and not that complicated. The job of the court is to rule the law Constitutional or rule the law Not Constitutional. Thats not what happened Thursday. The Statute was rewritten.When the court legislates from the bench bad things happen............like Plessy v. Ferguson.
You're still just saying nonsense. They did not re-write anything. They (roberts) ruled the penalty operates as a tax which is an argument that was made by the Solicitor General during oral argument.It's really simple and not that complicated. Making your inability to grasp it combined with your attempt to be condescending very, very amusing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Figured it out.They can't deny me for pre-existingSo no insurance, pay the small fine for not having insurance.If I get sick, go get insurance, pay for it month to month until surgery/treatment is over, then dump it and go back to paying small fine.Thanks Obamacare!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Figured it out.They can't deny me for pre-existingSo no insurance, pay the small fine for not having insurance.If I get sick, go get insurance, pay for it month to month until surgery/treatment is over, then dump it and go back to paying small fine.Thanks Obamacare!
Hey guys, look, BG is starting to realize why an individual mandate was necessary.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is really simple and not that complicated.The job of the court is to rule the law Constitutional or rule the law Not Constitutional. Thats not what happened Thursday. The Statute was rewritten.When the court legislates from the bench bad things happen............like Plessy v. Ferguson.
Where can we find this new, rewritten version of the statute?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys, look, BG is starting to realize why an individual mandate was necessary.
The individual mandate does not solve the problem, it only delays the inevitable.You cannot charge more for the tax than it is for qualifying covereage, that would be absurd to pay a $2000 tax for coverage that costs $1000.However if the tax is lower than the coverage, combined with the the no pre existing conditions denials, it is optimal strategy to pay the tax, wait until your injured before getting insurance, buy insurance on the way to the hospital and print it out like The Generals Car Insurance. And force the insurance companies to lose all their money.The only way the individual mandate can work is by force, or the tax is more expensive than the insurance, otherwise all the money will goto the government, and all the money being spent will be by the insurance companies.The insurance companies will either have to get the money from the government that they collected via taxes, or go under. Making the goverment the one who runs the health insurance.The slippery slope saysAt that point in becomes in the best interest of the government finanically for the citizens to be physically fit, eating healthly, and making better decisions, taxes taxes taxes?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so looking forward to when Obama care is fully implemented and it sucks and everyone tries to figure out why they were so excited about it.And for 22 year olds being told they must buy full medical insurance or be fined taxed as a punishment.Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm fine with letting all come crashing down just so I can laugh at the people who are causing the disaster.
Their is nothing funny about this mess. It will hurt a lot of innocent people including future citizens not born yet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a long rambling post that pretends there is a limit on how many arguments you can make to the Supreme Court. There's not. They made both arguments. One worked on 4 people, the other worked on Roberts. They didn't "change" their argument. They argued that it should be constitutional under the Commerce Clause OR the Taxation power. Roberts didn't invent the tax argument nor did the Solicitor General invent the new argument after the old one failed. As an aside, intent, as you are describing it, is irrelevant here. Obama is still claiming it's not a tax. Personally, I found Roberts opinion to be very persuasive.Have a seance and complain to the Founding Fathers for leaving such a gaping loophole in Congress' taxation power.
If you read the well written dessent you will realize that the gaping loophole was not their until John Roberts created it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I will agree that the Commerce Clause was their "original" argument but it's not like they made 15 arguments. They made two and both arguments were successful to a degree. If you just threw every argument at the wall, I think that would backfire against you.I still have not seen anyone make a good argument that Roberts was wrong.
Again I will go with the well written dissent.Page 150SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissentingAnd the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, ratherthan where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] actrende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not atax.For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but torewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubl- ing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The one they just passed.
Another problem with this whole thing was this issue was not addressed, except for John Roberts rambling which really did not solve the problem.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 4“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still just saying nonsense. They did not re-write anything. They (roberts) ruled the penalty operates as a tax which is an argument that was made by the Solicitor General during oral argument.It's really simple and not that complicated. Making your inability to grasp it combined with your attempt to be condescending very, very amusing.
I have always like you, still do. I really don't want to be condescending, but you are wrong.I will let Justice Ginsburg make my argument.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 120Opinion of GINSBURG, J.THE CHIEF JUSTICE nevertheless would rewrite §1304to countenance only the “right to alter somewhat,” or “amend, but not toomuch.” Congress, however, did not so qualify §1304.It is fully understood that Congress meant that the Mandate was to be a Penalty instead of a Tax. The original bill was rejected when the Mandate was to be a Tax.Page 150SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissentingAnd the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, ratherthan where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] actrende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not atax.For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but torewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubl- ing.Page 151We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislationthat imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111thCong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy FutureAct of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a taxthrough judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch ofgovernmentleast accountable to the citizenry.I don't know if you have read the dessent but it is well written and powerful. I challenge every one to read this document. You will find out that the Conservitive Judges are not Monsters. You will also understand John Roberts rambling opions has done great damage. Justice Ginsburg even called him out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Where can we find this new, rewritten version of the statute?
The question should be was this law upheld and applied as written by Congress.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 4SyllabusCHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandatemay be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.page 5The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaidfunding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 51–55.© The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existingMedicaidfunds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of theAffordable Care Act are not affected.That is the new text.Again, I quote Justice Ginberg.Page 120Opinion of GINSBURG, J.THE CHIEF JUSTICE nevertheless would rewrite §1304to countenance only the “right to alter somewhat,” or “amend, but not toomuch.” Congress, however, did not so qualify §1304.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys, look, BG is starting to realize why an individual mandate was necessary.
Silly liberal, believing that the there was logic behind the individual mandateThe most it will be is $2,000 a year, that is considerably less than I pay now for insurance that has a $5,000 deductible per year.And if I have a bad year financially, the amount will be much less.So there is no way I will carry insurance since I will pay for any healthcare below $5,000 anyway, and there is no reason to carry insurance at all.And insurance companies, after not getting the money from healthy people to offset their pay outs, will have to raise rates considerably, which of course will mean the fine tax will always be lower than buying the insurance.I'm sure the insurance companies will put up with this for at least 2 years before they just bail completely from the US market, or demand government aid to make up the short falls created by 'free healthcare'It will be great when tax dollars are used to ensure insurance companies make a healthy profit every year so that I can avoid being responsible for my own health.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is also incorrect. They made both arguments during oral argument.BG, kids are covered until 26 now. One of the more popular provisions.
iM sure there are universally popular parts to the communist manifesto. too. The fact of the matter is, this poorly constructed bill will be an overwhelming burden to small business.I just thank God, Im in a position to never have to look for a job again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be great when tax dollars are used to ensure insurance companies make a healthy profit every year so that I can avoid being responsible for my own health.
There's a part in a certain video game where a man says SKATE OR DIE!!! and a hive of bees comes after your skater until he's either too slow and they get him, or he can gain admission to a skate ramp.When this bill came up, it was SKATE OR DIE for the insurance companies, who up to that point had been skating around doing tricks and enjoying a simple, easy and immensely profitable life, but suddenly had to start calling in every legislative favor they'd ever paid for over the years to ensure that this bill didn't create a system that totally destroyed their very existence.They were going to take it up the ass no matter what- it was just a matter between choosing between a banana or an unlubricated pineapple.Unfortunately, the ideal situation here wasn't just shoving it up their asses (neither banana nor pineapple), but shooting them between the eyes, putting them totally out of business and going to national health care.People are incredibly ****ing stupid and naive, though, so you can keep them picking cotton, believing they're being 'treated well', if you just give them ham on Christmas and keep the whippings to a minimum.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was a more modern version of referencing slavery and racism, can we change from cotton to "Farm my World of Warcraft gold, chink!" cotton picking just isnt doing it for me anymore.Ill try to come up with others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...