Roberts v. Roberts
During the oral argument on ObamaCare, the justice who most concisely destroyed the government’s argument that it was a “tax” was … Chief Justice John Roberts.
Here was the colloquy between the chief justice and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during the March 27, 2012 oral argument:
GENERAL VERRILLI: … it seems to me that not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why didn’t Congress call it a tax, then?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You’re telling me they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power. Why didn’t they say it was a tax?
GENERAL VERRILLI: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. But it is in the Internal Revenue Code, it is collected by the IRS on April 15th. I don’t think this is a situation in which you can say –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that’s the reason. They thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty. [Emphasis added].
In his eventual opinion, the chief justice concluded that what Congress expressly, purposely, and repeatedly called a “penalty” (not a “tax”), to be imposed on those who did not comply with the legislative mandate that they “shall” obtain insurance, could fairly be read as a tax — even though a tax is neither what Congress called it nor intended it to be — and thus within the Constitutional power to levy taxes. As an old law school professor used to say, I get it all except the “thus.”
Henceforth law professors will have to teach their students that the Constitutional provision allowing Congress to levy taxes includes not only (1) the power to levy taxes on things you do, income you earn, or other activities, but also (2) a judicially created power to levy “shared responsibility payments” on commerce you don’t engage in. This is an argument that all five appellate courts that considered the argument on the merits before it reached the Supreme Court rejected (one appellate court ruled it was a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act and dismissed the case without reaching the merits of any Constitutional question).
Writing for the Court, the chief justice held that the “shared responsibility payment” is a tax, even though Congress repeatedly called it a “penalty” in the law; went out of its way not to label it a tax; and had ObamaCare supporters, from the president on down, repeatedly deny it was a tax while the legislation was being considered — only to turn around and argue in court that a tax is what it was. Now that the chief justice has held it was a tax, the administration is again denying it was a tax.
Maybe OT, but why do Americans call their Solicitors General and Attorneys General by the honorific “General”? Why turn the adjective into a noun?
It’s stupid, so lots of people are bound to do it. He should obviously be referred to as Solicitor. The incorrect description of Verrilli as a General is annoying but the inarticulate exchange between Verrilli and Roberts is distressing.
The word “general” in solicitor general and attorney general is an adjective, not a noun. The grammatical construction is a holdover from Latin languages where adjectives follow the noun that they modify. I think the usage comes from England, where French was the language of the courts for a long time after it fell out of common use.
At any rate, attorney general means roughly “attorney for the entire country”. Ditto for solicitor general.
Somebody needs to grab Justice Roberts by the lapels and ask him in light of his decision, ‘Wat da fock is da point of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution?’
Commerce Clause or Taxing Power, we’ve had a century of these inside the beltway bastards stepping all over those issues belonging to the States or People, not the Federal.
So the law as it stands now is that Congress cannot make us eat broccoli, but can mandate everyone do so and impose a failure-to-eat-broccoli tax on anyone not complying with the mandate. Congress can apparently mandate anything, as long as it accompanies the mandate with a failure-to-do-it tax that need not be called a tax.
Praise from conservatives for Roberts’ cowardly and brain dead decision is misguided. Roberts may have constrained the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause, but the Roberts’ Precedent now permits Congress to do whatever it wants under the Taxing Power.
This is truly an “OMG what were you thinking” decision.
UGH. Seriously. UGH.
Can we demand that Roberts has a check-up from the neck-up?
GMTA…I’ve been thinking the same thing.
But then, a check-up from the neck-up should have been required for Woodrow Wilson (who became completely incapacitated by a stroke while in office) and, arguably, for our current POTUS (can’t even read fluently from a Teleprompter, not to mention THIS childish incident).
The moderate men show themselves once again to speak out of both sides of their mouths. Roberts was nominated by a compassionate conservative, and that spells the need for institutional legitimacy (leading to social cohesion) over the correct interpretation of the law. I wrote about the four types of authoritarian states here: http://clarespark.com/2012/06/29/the-neutered-state/. The Obama adminstration partakes of all four types of authoritarian state.
So they said it wasn’t a tax when it passed but defended it as one in court. Isn’t this fraud? Congress shouldn’t get away with fraud and SCOTUS should not have helped them.
Can congress in general be sued in perhaps a class action suit for ‘false advertising’ They after all advertised that this wasn’t a tax, and now we are told it is. Heck, under that standard, we could argue that it violates truth in advertising when it calls itself “Affordable”
There is a special kind of suit for this kind of misrepresentation by Congress. It is called an E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N.
Yes, Congress can be held to account for it’s sins. The method is Article V of the Constitution. This device is known as the Constitutional Convention and we need 2/3rds of the States to convene one and we need 3/4s of the States to ratifiy the changes to the Constitution and make them the law of the land.
The Congress is not part of the effort, nor is the Excutive Branch or the SCOTUS. This is where the Foundings Fathers put the country right back into the hands of the States and the Citizens thereof.
We have the power to make this country exactly what we want it to be and it is time that we remake the Federal Government, The Congress and the whole mess that exists into what the Founders envisioned for us.
The TEA PARTY is the perfect vehicle to accomplish this task, join up and lets get started creating the first Constitutional Convention in many, many years.
You don’t really want that. There’s no telling what would emerge, but the odds are overwhelming it would respond only to the exigencies of the day, rather than the time-tested universality demonstrated by our actual Constitution. Many other countries, including more than a few dictatorships, have fallen into the trap of institutionalizing measures for the nonce. It has always backfired. Leave well enough alone: we have a good document, if the citizens are willing to live by it and enforce it upon their leaders, democratically, through the ballot box.
Not to mention the fact that everyone involved has flouted their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
Liberalism is ‘political pornography’ for it provides pleasure without any personal responsibility (which is why it is so popular with the secular world).
John Roberts healthcare ruling was meant to gain the accolades of other political porn addicts – those democrat and republican liberals.
Ugmug, You got your bumper sticker, which agrees with yesterday’s WSJ editorial that the ruling was political. The problem with porn is that it sells well. Nice phrase. I hope it sticks in the narrative.
Great phrase, ‘Political Pornography’. It also applies to many with an (R) after their name. The Obamacare ruling may be the final nail in our coffin. Good knowing you America, it was great while it lasted.
None of the theories that have been posited for why Roberts did what he did make as much sense as the theory that Obama has photos of Roberts in bed with a murdered prostitute, cf. The Godfather II.
Your suggestion might be a stretch, but protected by life-long tenure seasoned judge Roberts sudden “conversion” to liberalism from reading couple articles and listening to couple speeches indeed smells like he “had received an offer he could not refuse” (Godfather).
He had to write so obviously absurd opinion to protect what? Or whom?
Was somebody in his family threatened?
Are his own taxes in order?
Is there something about him which is more shameful than becoming a judicial clown?
Apparently
I would not put it past this administration to issue some sort of threat. I don’t understand why this idea has not attracted more attention. Perhaps people are reluctant to adopt an accusatory tone. Nonetheless, the Chicago-thug style of tone this administration has set forth can hardly be ignored.
No-no-no.
As I’ve mentioned before, 0bama threatened Roberts and his entire family that he could wipe them out with his sniper drones. lol?
Yikes.
People, people, people.
There is NO mystery here. Just look at his history.
John Roberts was the young lawyer tasked with vetting a certain potential Supreme Court nominee under the Reagan administration. His glowing reports resulted the candidate being selected, nominated, and eventually confirmed to the highest court in the land.
That Supreme Court Justice was the disaster known as Sandra Day O’Connor.
She was known as an extreme abortion activist in her own state, and it would have been impossible for Roberts to have missed that fact.
Roberts has been a leftist mole all along. He didn’t sell out, he didn’t cave in to pressure, and he didn’t have his family threatened.
He simply came out from his deep cover to execute his assigned mission.
Biggest con job that the Congress, President and Supreme Court have foisted on Americans!! It’s no different than the shell game common criminals(aka Congress, President and Supreme Court) play on unsuspecting, naive, stupid passers by(aka American public) on the streets of America!!
Roberts legacy will rest on the ashe heap of history with a reputation about as good as Justice Tawney in the Dred Scott decision. He tried to be “smart” and ended up being just another liberal jerk. Too bad he could have been a contender until he went to the dark side and drank from the liberal kool aid. Now Americans will need to work again to vote the necessary SOBs out of office to repeal this monstrosity before it buries us all. God help us. We will need it. Roberts can take a flying leap to hell as far as I am concerned.
Republicans Can’t Hold Their Conservatism
They say that liberals can’t hold their liquor. But with the recent Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts declaring that any ‘funny smelling’ legislation coming out of congress is automatically a tax proves that Republicans can’t hold their conservatism.
Liberals love to ridicule the bible but it depicts them exactly. When Eve pursued her pleasures (believing they were in the apple) she wanted anonymity and privacy (mankind’s first party girl).
But when she realized that her pursuit was a fallacy fraught with negative consequences she became as gregarious as a liberal and went around offering her apple to Adam to share her burdens of woe.
Its the same now in congress where politicians and special interest groups ‘devilishly’ covet the spoils of their legislation but turn ‘angelic’ when the taxpayer is forced to pay for all the harmful consequences that ensue.
‘Liberalism’ is able to sell itself like pornography for it titillates without the hindrance of self-control. Once you strip away all personal responsibly what’s left is ‘naked’ liberalism. Which is why so many politicians and media types enjoy the never ending ‘peep show’ of liberal politics on Capitol Hill. It strips away our moral values like pornography.
Roberts voted the way he did because the conservative block left him no choice. They wanted to strike down the whole bill, not just the mandate. It would have been judicial overreach and a dangerous precedent for the Supreme Court to strike down a bill enacted by a democratically elected Congress. Roberts is right. It’s our fault–we elected the socialists. When we willingly put people like Obama in the presidency and Franken in the Senate, why blame the chief justice for our miseries?
I am inclined to agree. As I stated elsewhere, Roberts had no choice but to straddle a balance between addressubg the unconstitutionality of this bill but at the same time not overstepping the boundaries of the balance of power. IOW, he had to split the baby.
And yes, it is up to us to vote in the type of gov’t we deem as appropriate. We pretty much always get what we deserve. Obama was a huge mistake & so were all those far-leftist Democrats who run the Senate. This upcoming election will doubtless go down in history as the one where we decide whether or not we want to keep our country as we know it or give it up.
Couldn’t he have done that without declaring the whole bill constitutional? He could have sided with the conservatives on the mandate, and sided with the liberals on severability. There is no reason for him to uphold the entire thing, unless that’s what he wanted to do.
….because the mandate is unconstitutional. Justices should NOT engage in politics. The Constitution, and nothing other than the Constitution, should be their guide. Period!
You liberals drive me nuts. The bill was drafted without (intentionally) a severability clause, meaning they didn’t want it picked apart. It was to stand or fall in total. Finding just one part unconstitutional would have rendered the whole thing null and void.
Now we will NEVER get rid of this thing. Enjoy your poverty. I think I’ll cash out.
….because the mandate is unconstitutional. Justices should NOT engage in politics. The Constitution, and nothing other than the Constitution, should be their guide. Period!
Darcy, if this POS prez had been properly vetted by the MSM in the first place…we wouldn’t be these frogs in this pot of boiling water.
Some of us vetted him and found him morally repugnant and complete UNfit for POTUS but a good portion of our populace are dumbed-down idiots who believe anything they are spoon-fed by the Commie bastids.
*sigh*
Ain’t that the truth Delia and America’s STUPID electorate get the STUPID Government they deserve. And if, as is likely, they do the SAME again in 2012 then there is no hope whatsoever left for the USA.
Dont forget that 13% of voters are RACIST Blacks who voted for the USURPER 96% will do so AGAIN in 2012 even though the 50% WHITE, 43%ARAB,7% Black USURPER brought up in RICH white privilege and who is connected to SLAVE TRADERS not to Slaves has NOTHING whatsoever in common with the average African American, they are just so easily FOOLED ‘cos he looks like them.
Add to that the 25-30% of American voters who are dyed in the wool Left Wing moonbats and you only need about 10% congenitally STUPID voters to give the USURPER Barry HUSSEIN Soetero Kardashian another term and America certainly has a LOT of them.
“It would have been judicial overreach and a dangerous precedent for the Supreme Court to strike down a bill enacted by a democratically elected Congress.”
Newsflash: this wouldn’t be the first time a court has struck down a bill ‘enacted by a democratically elected Congress’. Think income tax. It’s why we have the 16th Amendment. It also happens to be their JOB to serve as a check on the elected branches.
The convoluted logic, the transparently illogic of Robert’s opinion has got to be some kind of ruse… He’s playing poker: he’s bluffing. And the right’s only response is to go “all in”, to force the left to put their money where their mouth is. As a consequence the left will lose big-time, but only if we don’t fold like a house of cards. We have the stronger hand! Robert’s banter is all part of the game!
What game is it?
After Roberts’ ruling Congress apparently has constitutional power to order every American to join NRA or pay $100,000 of tax-to-a-tax-penalty-not-a-penalty.
Congress can now order you to subscribe to federally approved newspaper (list consists of NY Times only) or pay $10,000 of tax-to-a-tax-penalty-not-a-penalty.
Apparently Congress can now demand to to vote for candidates only from the party approved by special commission or your income will be garnished by IRS.
Are you ready for IRS to verify your voting records to determine if you had voted for the wrong party?
Is his game to destroy American’s freedom to choose?
You’re exactly right!
Few professional commentators failed to point out that Roberts’ opinion created a very dangerous precedent.
Have you read the passage regarding congressional power to tax as it is written in the Constitution? It’s as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It’s definition as stated above is very broad & vague. The Roberts decision doesn’t impact it one way or the other. All he did was declare that the ACA mandate is a tax. I don’t see how this opens the door to any more congressional power than was already there in the Constitution.
Never forget that the American people can always fight back onerous policies at the ballot box. We typically get the gov’t we deserve.
He did not just declare mandate as tax.
He also declared this “penalty-tax-not-tax” constitutional.
He could declare mandate being a tax and, at a minimum, demand bill to be returned back to Congress to be rewritten honestly naming tax as such.
But then he could also look at how that “tax” goes against Bill of Rights and 250 years of American tradition and declare is as unconstitutional as tax as it is unconstitutional under commerce clause.
Last week there were some limits of what can be taxed.
Congress could not tax air you inhale. It would be viewed as violation of Bill Of Rights.
There are no limits anymore. Now you can be taxed for breathing or for not getting yourself homosexual partner.
Above I gave some examples of “taxes” which became perfectly constitutional now, thanks to Roberts.
Note about “fighting at the ballot box”.
It works only until there is some minimal expectation of honesty from government authorities.
But branches of government become corrupt beyond any shame allowing one of the branches to bully others into silence, all bets are off.
Imagine if in November Obama and all Democratic candidates will receive 60 – 70% votes everywhere across the countries and any complains about votes being tempered with will be rejected by the scared to death judges on the some funny bases of “no standing”, or “no public interest”.
Putin wins elections this way guaranteed. All is legal, as far as courts are concerned.
Lenny, this Roberts did a serious shark jump.
I weep.
Lenny,
News flash, they’ve ALWAYS had the power to TAX, anything and everything under the Sun….they just didnt dare use it before, at this level of arrogance, for fear of open revolt.
Thats the problem with having others elected to do your business…you give them “rules” and “standards” but there is always room on the edges to abuse your directives untill you fire them.
People with Power of Attorney are “allowed” to sign checks and make financial decisions, and sometimes they abuse that right. Its a fine line between outright theivery and whats been intended by the Issuer when Power of Attorney is granted. Thats THE RISK of entering into that agreement. You might get hosed if the person you selected is “just barely” inside the law.
Our Republic depends upon Reasonable, Honorable men NOT to abuse their offices. The DIS honorable, corrupt and morally bankrupt can/will tax us to death for nefarious reasons, because thats how the system is set up, untill we vote them out one by one.
Nothing in the Constitution says taxes have to be a small and painless, or that they have to even be “truthfully” revealed. All that matters is, what is their actual authority once the smoke and mirrors of a law are removed.
Congress passed a law…they lied about its very nature, and did it against the will of most people. Roberts distilled the Real Nature of their plan (a massive new tax scheme) and the reality is, they have that power. They disguised the Bill to disguise the tax, in order to deceive us.
Now, its our turn…
We can either VOTE THEM OUT or ACCEPT the new taxes.
Its not the Supreme Courts job to protect us from our own stupidity in electing these crooks.
In the “Catholic Court”, Roberts was acting as Pontius Pilate. He washed his hands of this “tax” that was not passed as a tax, not formulated as a tax, not defended by Obama as a tax…but argued before the Court as a tax.
Some non-lawyers believe that Roberts (or any of the other justices)could ignore the argument before them that it was now a tax and was always a tax. That’s simply not true.
Roberts could have taken on the blame for what Congress did, nearly the full brunt of it, onto the Supreme Court. He didn’t.
We can debate whether his throwing this back into the lap of Congress was intentional, unintentional or whether the consequences will be upon him…instead of the people who invented this Bait and Switch.
But this article by Rick is precisely what must be done. Get the truth out there and parade it around, shine a light on it. Unfortunately for us, our side contains Republicans who are nearly helpless when it comes to framing issues and fighting off propaganda, lies and distortion. We have to do it for them.
Look, we are not going to change the decision. So, throwing a tantrum about Roberts is a waste of energy. In order to think through this strategically, we must take the momentum of the decision and use it to throw our opponents bodies to the ground. Political judo. Kung fu.
All this wasted anger at Roberts is misdirected. He didn’t pass this in the middle of the night, in a dark room, by bribing Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. You are completely wasting your time venting at Roberts and ignoring Pelosi, Reid, Obama and Carney.
The Big Lie by the Fabian Socialists (aka, small c communists) is that ALL that they have done is not part of the overthrow. Get OFF of Roberts’ reason for the decision and onto ALL the reasons why it can never stand as a TAX.
Remember, the Commerce Clause argument for this seizure of health insurance is gone. The state’s rights to opt out of the entitlement portion of it have been given carte blanche.
What should the Republicans do, now that they have a majority in the House and the Marxists do not have a filibuster free Senate?
They should take up the parliamentary offenses that passed this Marxist seizure and attack the law as an act of fraud on the people. Taxation without representation. Attack the law at its inception, at its creation, at its core.
Bring it up for recall. It could NEVER PASS AS A TAX. Get it? Checkmate.
Have the House bring the bill up on charges of fraud, deceit, improperly funded, ALL the grounds for a bill that is not properly structured or passed.
It cannot be raised as a Commerce Clause bill any longer…it can ONLY be defended AS A TAX. Let the Marxist try to pass that, defend it. They can’t. It would die…and never again rise from the crypt. It would be dead forever.
What good would it do for the House to do as you suggest? They can’t invalidate the bill by themselves, can they? It’s been enacted into law. The Senate won’t do anything with what they pass, so where does that leave us?
As part of its legislative process, the United States Congress considers thousands of bills each session. Yet, only a small percentage of them will ever reach the top of the president’s desk for final approval or veto. Along their way to the White House, bills traverse a maze of committees and subcommittees, debates, and amendments in both chambers of Congress.
The following is a simple explanation of the process required for a bill to become a law. For a complete explanation, see… “How Our Laws Are Made” (Library of Congress) Revised and Updated by Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian, United States House of Representatives.
Step 1: Introduction
Only a member of Congress (House or Senate) can introduce the bill for consideration. The Representative or Senator who introduces the bill becomes its “sponsor.” Other legislators who support the bill or work on its preparation can ask to be listed as “co-sponsors.” Important bills usually have several co-sponsors.
Four basic types of legislation, all commonly referred to as “bills” or “measures” are considered by Congress: Bills, Simple Resolutions, Joint Resolutions, and Concurrent Resolutions.
A bill or resolution has officially been introduced when it has been assigned a number (H.R. # for House Bills or S. # for Senate Bills), and printed in the Congressional Record by the Government Printing Office.
Step 2: Committee Consideration
All bills and resolutions are “referred” to one or more House or Senate committees according their specific rules.
Standing Rules of the US Senate
Rules of the US House of Representatives
Step 3: Committee Action
The committee considers the bill in detail. For example, the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee will consider a bill’s potential impact on the Federal Budget.
If the committee approves the bill, it moves on in the legislative process. Committees reject bills by simply not acting on them. Bills that fail to get committee action are said to have “died in committee,” as many do.
Step 4: Subcommittee Review
The committee sends some bills to a subcommittee for further study and public hearings. Just about anyone can present testimony at these hearings. Government officials, industry experts, the public, anyone with an interest in the bill can give testimony either in person or in writing. Notice of these hearings, as well as instructions for presenting testimony is officially published in the Federal Register.
Step 5: Mark Up
If the subcommittee decides to report (recommend) a bill back to the full committee for approval, they may first make changes and amendments to it. This process is called “Mark Up.” If the subcommittee votes not to report a bill to the full committee, the bill dies right there.
Step 6: Committee Action — Reporting a Bill
The full committee now reviews the deliberations and recommendations of the subcommittee. The committee may now conduct further review, hold more public hearings, or simply vote on the report from the subcommittee. If the bill is to go forward, the full committee prepares and votes on its final recommendations to the House or Senate. Once a bill has successfully passed this stage it is said to have been “ordered reported” or simply “reported.”
Step 7: Publication of Committee Report
Once a bill has been reported (See Step 6:) a report about the bill is written and published. The report will include the purpose of the bill, its impact on existing laws, budgetary considerations, and any new taxes or tax increases that will be required by the bill. The report also typically contains transcripts from public hearings on the bill, as well as the opinions of the committee for and against the proposed bill.
The FAILURE to honestly and with absolute integrity…put forth the PURPOSE of the bill, ANY AND ALL NEW TAXES OR TAX INCREASES required by the bill, and to allow for FAIR DEBATE on those taxations….would render the bill VOID AB INITIO. It never passed properly because it failed to meet its own parliamentary requirements. The bill is a nullity. It doesn’t exist. Only a fraud and scam exists in its place. This bill should be recalled for parliamentary correction.
Step 8: Floor Action — Legislative Calendar
The bill will now be placed on the legislative calendar of the House or Senate and scheduled (in chronological order) for “floor action” or debate before the full membership. The House has several legislative calendars. The Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader decide the order in which reported bills will be debated. The Senate, having only 100 members and considering fewer bills, has only one legislative calendar.
Step 9: Debate
Debate for and against the bill proceeds before the full House and Senate according to strict rules of consideration and debate.
Step 10: Voting
Once debate has ended and any amendments to the bill have been approved, the full membership will vote for or against the bill. Methods of voting allow for a voice vote or a roll-call vote.
Step 11: Bill Referred to Other Chamber
Bills approved by one chamber of Congress (House or Senate) are now sent to the other chamber where they will follow pretty much the same track of committee to debate to vote. The other chamber may approve, reject, ignore, or amend the bill.
Step12: Conference Committee
If the second chamber to consider a bill changes it significantly, a “conference committee” made up of members of both chambers will be formed. The conference committee works to reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. If the committee cannot agree, the bill simply dies. If the committee does agree on a compromise version of the bill, they prepare a report detailing the changes they have proposed. Both the House and Senate must approve the report of the conference committee or the bill will be sent back to them for further work.
Step 13: Final Action – Enrollment
Once both the House and Senate have approved the bill in identical form, it becomes “Enrolled” and sent to the President of the United States. The President may sign the bill into law. The President can also take no action on the bill for ten days while Congress is in session and the bill will automatically become law. If the President is opposed to the bill, he can “veto” it. If he takes no action on the bill for ten days after Congress has adjourned their second session, the bill dies. This action is called a “pocket veto.”
Step 14: Overriding the Veto
Congress can attempt to “override” a presidential veto of a bill and force it into law, but doing so requires a 2/3 vote by a quorum of members in both the House and Senate.
tl;dr
“Bring it up for recall. It could NEVER PASS AS A TAX. Get it? Checkmate.”
Probably why the demmunists keep calling it a penalty. The arguments for why healthy young Americans need to be part of the risk pool are downright hilarious.
It really does expose them for what they are. Too bad 50% of the country ignores their illogical rationale. The irresponsibility of someone not buying insurance because he can’t afford it pales in comparison to the irresponsibility of creating an insurance vehicle like a CDS.
OK, so the government argued that Congress thought of it as a tax but didn’t like to say so, and that there was reason to consider it a tax. Justice Roberts and his fellows accepted the argument that the government says a lot of things which are not necessarily true–although there is such a thing as a “tax penalty” so someone could weasel around the term. Since the government gives tax deductions for medical expenses, it could also, it seems logical, assess penalties for not taking steps to minimize those expenses (I’m not sure I’m clear here–if someone incurs higher than the usual allowance of medical bills, and claims them against their income tax liability, then theoretically the government (us) may end up paying for their care (by foregoing a debt, taxes, they owe) when we shouldn’t be.) Theory is what the Supreme Court deals with, the practical is supposed to be taken care of closer to the cause.
If “conservatives” would stop knee-jerking as much as the “liberals” do, it would be a lot easier for us “independents” to find a home with them.
Richman’s logic here is impeccable. It is impossible to defend Roberts’ position. He gave no credence at all to the “sense of the Congress,” what the Congress intended when it passed the law. What it intended was clearly a fine for those who choose not to buy insurance. He could have gone down in History as a great jurist, instead of just a bum, which is what he is; let’s face it.
A mandate is not a mandate.
A tax is not a tax.
It’s not rape…
Unless it’s ‘rape-rape’…
Oh sweet holy sh*t…
I’m starting to think someone has video of Roberts at one of Sandusky’s parties.
*cleans monitor*
LOL! Ewwwwwwwwwww.
Another hidden secret in Obamacare “RFID Chip Implants”
Posted by KimmyKaye on January 22, 2011
http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topics/another-hidden-secret-in
Of course the Republicans will get their knickers in a knot for awhile then they will be distracted by some shiney object. The Repubs. always end up enjoying all the extra money brought in by those pesky Democrats. The Senate, House,and Supremes are all for sale – that is how they got their jobs in the first place. Keeping their jobs and remaining in the club are much higher on their priority lists than following the constitutuion. Screwed again taxpayers. Mandates, taxes, fees, penalties, ad naseum, your government at work.
Peter Schiff demonstrates that, even on the grounds of calling it a tax, ObamaCare is STILL unconstitutional.
http://marketplayground.com/2012/07/02/peter-schiff-legal-gimmickry-rescues-obama/
guys. any british- descended gov’t can totally force you to buy anything. ya’ll keep mentioning broccoli. that’s child’s play. look up “Monmouth Caps.” Yep, the gov’t forced people to buy ugly brown hats, unless you were an aristocrat, a gentleman, or in the queen’s good book. Seriously. Went on like this for 100 years. Monmouth caps are found in shipwrecks off the American coastline.
Ugly, coarse, scrubby- fit for slaves in the USA- every englishman was required to buy and wear one. Oh- and the price went up and the quality went down- pretty much right when they quit being fashionable and started being cruddy- about like a GM car.
Anything.
you could be required to buy a Prada bag, so you don’t look poor, or you look industrious but not rich.
Anything. at all.
Monmouth Caps were being made at a time when the finest knits were at 14 stitches per inch- comparable to fine Wolford hose today. Monmouth Caps- scrubby, coarse, cheap- are ugly even being compared to knit ski caps today. Imagine being required to buy and wear….what’s the cheapest, scruffiest, most uncomfortable thing you own- and paying top-dollar for it?
Obama T-shirts.
I think one of the more interesting aspects of the surprise decision by the Supreme Court to declare forced consumption constitutional by virtue of the federal taxing power is its potential use as a device for economic intervention. Since savings is the bane of the neo-Keynesians, the newfound ability of the federal government to dictate consumption means that there need never again be a savings glut, a demand gap, or what Paul Krugman decries as insufficient inflation.
For example, since there is presently insufficient demand in the housing market, the Congress can address this by simply passing a law requiring everyone with an annual income of more than $75,000 who does not presently have a mortgage to purchase a house with a price of at least $250,000 or face paying a tax of $15,000. Because the annual cost of the mortgage payments would only come to around $11,500 at current low interest rates, most people would choose to purchase a house rather than pay the tax, especially since there would be an implied “Roberts Put” providing a reasonable expectation of decent profits on the forced investment. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional, as per the court’s recent decision, and it would have an undeniably inflationary effect on home prices, bank assets, and national wealth while reducing those pernicious savings rates and ending debt-deflation in the household sector.
Surely permanent economic prosperity is nigh!
So, based on your premise, all the argumentation, the thousands upon thousands of written words, the briefs, were just so much blowing in the wind in Games Lawyers Play ?
I’ll buy that.
(The government lawyer Verrilli was downright lame if not completely incompetent as he had not a substantive leg to stand on)
Add in this president’s apparently successful attempts at intimidating the Court, and I’m happy to know that the future of the country comes down to stupid gamesmanship.
Oh I’m sure it is a tax and not a penalty. The idea that if it works properly and everyone gets the insurance there is no revenue and there is no tax is probably a joke. What will happen if I am interpreting this correctly is that the government can change its interpretations of what meets mandate compliance and then tax the policyholders under that company. Good luck getting your money back.
Even if its a mistake and they shouldn’t have taxed you, have fun dealing with the IRS. It seems it is the insurance company that does or does not meet the mandate and the individual taxpayer that pays the tax.
If an insurance company says it meets the mandate, fails to do so and you get taxed, is the insurance company liable? If there are lawsuits who will get sued and why. Will class action trial lawyers make a killing on this? Will we be sticking insurance companies with massive lawsuits to be paid off raising costs on insurance even as we get our penalty back?
Also what is the minimum insurance you need to buy not to get the penalty? Does anyone even know?
Finally how can you have shared responsibility in the eyes of the law without entering into a contract? The government does not have the right to force you into something against your will short of conscription. Natural rights are protection against the imposition of damages from government or individuals not a share of some hypothetical pie. Is the “shared responsibility” implied that we need to get everyone covered so that emergency rooms are not swamped or to keep the program as a whole afloat in which case the tax is raised to make sure the system functions and is used to make up some money on shortfalls? Sounds far-fetched but fair share is the democrats mantra and it never defines when enough is enough. Certainly the latter holds. If it is designed to guarantee revenue (and if Obamacare raises healthcare costs any increase in premium is an increase in revenue for a government aim) it is a tax.
There’s really nothing new about this. The Court did its usual trick of admitting that the law is unconstitutional on its face, but finding a way of allowing it to come into force anyhow.
The key lesson is that the support of the Bush-appointed Roberts for Obamacare demonstrates the complete absurdity of appealing to the Supreme Court to justify voting for Republican presidents. After nearly 40 years of this, you’d think Charlie Brown would realize that Lucy is never going to hold the football no matter what she says.
Face it brethren, our country is broken. Our system is no longer the system it once was…and hasn’t been for a long time.
Place your hope in Christ – the Republicans got nuthin’ to offer.
Rick, I’d call you a moron, but morons don’t deserve the abuse! Justice Roberts was quite clear, it is, “WE THE PEOPLE,” that must protect the Constitution. It will take concerted effort, over a long period, to undo a hundred+ years of treasonous assault! Your looking for gophers while the buffalo run you over, does not add to the concerted effort.
Mr. Richman,
I believe you’ve fallen prey to what commonly afflicts viewers of Fox “News” and MSNBC, you do not understand to issues. Almost your entire article could have been cut and pasted from a cable “News” program. Fox and MSNBC are NOT news organizations.
Chief Justice Roberts was very clear about what kind of Justice he would be; a humble referee not an activist. He’s proven that with several rulings. Two examples were the Citizens United and Affordable Heath Care rulings. In the former, his ruling was unpopular and perfectly constitutional. The latter ruling was the same.
If you were to read his opinion in its entirety, I think you would find Chief Justice Robert’s had two main points: first, was that the law is constitutional and second, that the rightwing in this country needs to take some time and actually read the U.S. Constitution. The second part was very subtle but one that you and other viewers of this website should take seriously.
One problem: The Democrats during the legislative debates on the bill repeatedly defended ObamaCare as a proper exercise of the taxing power: http://is.gd/2UbI6e
Thus Roberts had some ground for his ruling by looking at legislative intent. I don’t agree with him, but his logic isn’t total hooey, either.
But Phin, Tax laws are supposed to be initiated in the House of Representatives. That didn’t happen in the case of the Obamacaretax Act.tion 7 of Article 1.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei/
Section 7 of Article 1.
KNOW THIS IS OUT PLACE, BUT POSTING IT EVERYWHERE I CAN FIND:
McConnell Proving his RINOness?? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/03/McConnell-Ready-to-Cut-and-Run-from-Repeal#comments
I’ve never liked McConnell cause he has no bells…Just another turncoat RINO. I do not know how much truth is in this story, but as a TEA Party organizer I am not gonna sit and wait for limpd**ck to make up his mind. I’ve sent out a mass email to thousands of TP members with this story and have suggested that every one of them call McConnell’s DC office…EVERY DAY UNTIL OC IS REPEALED. We are past the point of being PC and polite. If you would like to join us in this, McConnell’s DC office number is 202-224-2541. We intend to barrage him with constant calls with one simple message. YOU DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO REPEAL OBAMACARE OR WE WILL CONTRIBUTE OUR LAST NICKEL TOWARD BASHING YOUR BRAINS OUT IN YOUR NEXT ELECTION. EVEN IF THAT MEANS REPLACE YOU WITH A DEM…AT LEAST WE WILL KNOW WHAT WE GET WITH THE LEFT. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABUSED BY WASHINGTON AND RINOs FOR FAR TOO LONG AND WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT ANYOMORE. MITCH IS SAFE FOR THIS YEAR BUT WILL HAVE TO FACE THE VOTERS IN 2014.
This guy blinked. It was all or nothing, the way the OscamCare bill was designed. Couldnt pick and choose. It was a bluff job and Roberts blinked in May.
Romney needs to stay on point. 5 of the justices found the Mandate unconstitutional. The way the bill was presented and legislated as a Mandate was then found to be unconstitional. This makes the material essence of the bill unconstitutional.
Romney should not get pulled into the silly argument if it is a tax or not. It was legislated as a mandate, the mandate was found to be unconsitutional, and Roberts is NOT a legislator. Let others paint it out as a tax with the 16,000 IRS agents and 1.5 trillion on the middle class. Again, hopefully skillfully shows the mandate was unconstit and Roberts is not a legislator.
Roberts is Souter in loafers.
Boosh 41:Souter
Boosh 43:Roberts
No More Booshes.
This guy blinked. It was all or nothing, the way the OscamCare bill was designed. Couldnt pick and choose. It was a bluff job and Roberts blinked in May.
Romney needs to stay on point. 5 of the justices found the Mandate unconstitutional. The way the bill was presented and legislated as a Mandate was then found to be unconstitional. This makes the material essence of the bill unconstitutional.
Romney should not get pulled into the silly argument if it is a tax or not. It was legislated as a mandate, the mandate was found to be unconsitutional, and Roberts is NOT a legislator. Let others paint it out as a tax with the 16,000 IRS agents and 1.5 trillion on the middle class. Hopefully Romney skillfully shows the mandate was unconstit and Roberts is not a legislator.
Those that are angery at Roberts should sublimate that towards helping Senate, House, and getting Romney in there to box in Roberts. Possibly sacrifice some House for Senate seats.
It’s clearly a case of forced sales, (commerce clause) not a tax: since the public is forced to buy private for-profit insurance, or else go to jail as a penalty, and as the revenue does NOT go to the government, NO, it’s not a ‘tax!’
Roberts wrote in his opinion that “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES.”
Let’s assume that the Democrats wanted to call it a tax, but didn’t (they actually DID change it from a tax to a penalty) FOR POLITICAL REASONS. Fine.
If it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, IS IT ALSO NOT TRUE THAT THE JOB OF THE COURT IS NOT TO PROTECT ELECTED OFFICIALS IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES?
Why should the Supreme Court provide cover for Congress? Why should the Supreme Court provide cover a President?
If Congress meant for it to be a tax, but deliberately chose to label it a penalty due to political considerations, IT IS ***NOT*** THE JOB OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO PROTECT THE RULING CLASS FROM EITHER THEIR OWN FOLLY (WRITING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND HAVING THEM THEM BEING DECLARED SO, i.e., THE MANDATE IS A “PENALTY”) OR THEIR POLITICAL DECISIONS (VOTING TO INCREASE TAXES, i.e., THE MANDATE IS A “TAX”).
On whose side is the Court? It would appear the DC-Establishment and, certainly, not the people.
– reached care of the Knights of Malta?
Roberts ought to be impeached, otherwise removed, or thrown out with the bad Obama bathwater.
A practical demostration of the fact that a lawyer can — and will — argue any side of a case with equal conviction.
well, when the chit hits the fan, and the bottom drops out of everything, i doubt any congresscritter, supreme court stooge or obammy worshipper will be long bragging about position. actual survival in a world gone broke will be a totally new adventure.
i could see the confusion that is obamacare, and the resentment manifesting itself, eventually making roberts America’s most hated. may judas enjoy whatever gain he incurred while he can.
Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House? POSTED AT 8:41 PM ON JUNE 28, 2012
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/
So you walk in to a shop and say ‘I DON’T want a Coke’ and the shopkeeper says ‘Thank you Sir that will be 50c TAX’ and you say but I DON”T want it and the shopkeeper says Judge Roberts says its OK to PENALISE you for NOT drinking a coke and we will use the IRS to chase you down if you don’t pay the Tax ooops sorry PENALTY.
That STUPIDITY is in essence is what Judge Roberts convoluted reasoning has inflicted on the Amrican people.