Oh My God!

Started by peternap, June 28, 2012, 09:34:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

peternap




High court upholds key part of Obama health law


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The decision means the historic overhaul will continue to go into effect over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court's judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension.

The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
These here is God's finest scupturings! And there ain't no laws for the brave ones! And there ain't no asylums for the crazy ones! And there ain't no churches, except for this right here!

muldoon

The Congress could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by simply calling it what it is, a tax. It was always a tax, and calling it something else was always a big charade. 

Then again, if they had done that in the first place it never would have passed. 

--
"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."


MushCreek

Constitution? We don't need no steenking Constitution! d*
Jay

I'm not poor- I'm financially underpowered.

peternap

Quote from: MushCreek on June 28, 2012, 10:34:47 AM
Constitution? We don't need no steenking Constitution! d*

Good thing too because I think I lost it somewhere. >:(

At the risk of being crass....There's a tax in the woodpile!

QuoteSTEPHANOPOULOS:  I wanted to check for myself.  But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA:  My critics say everything is a tax increase.  My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy.  You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS:  But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA:  I absolutely reject that notion.

These here is God's finest scupturings! And there ain't no laws for the brave ones! And there ain't no asylums for the crazy ones! And there ain't no churches, except for this right here!

OlJarhead

Roberts: ""Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,"


archimedes

The court made the correct decision based on the law.  It doesn't mean the law was good or wise,  simply legal.

The plaintiffs were asking the court to become judicial activists and overturn a legally constituted law simply because they disagree with the policy.  Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts,  a conservative justice,  made the correct decision based on the law,  and based on conservative limited gov't principles.  It's not the courts place to overturn the law,  however bad the law may be,  if the law is legally constituted.

Congress has the power to overturn the law,  through the legislative process,   if it sees fit to do so - and that's how it should be under the law.

Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough,  and I will move the world.

Squirl

Quote from: muldoon on June 28, 2012, 10:29:59 AM
The Congress could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by simply calling it what it is, a tax. It was always a tax, and calling it something else was always a big charade. 

Then again, if they had done that in the first place it never would have passed. 


Exactly.  It is a tax of middle income Americans who choose not to purchase insurance.  The entire penalty language of the statute was tied directly to lines of a tax return and taxable income and to be paid with your tax return.  I thought it was ridiculous for the Obama administration to argue that it was in the governments taxing authority, but it wasn't a tax.  After the first day of argument and the justices eviscerating the government for taking that position, they would have dismissed it for the Obama administration claiming it wasn't a tax.

Archimedies, I completely disagree.
They should have been consistent.  Under the law, if it is a tax, there is no standing to challenge the law until after the tax is due!  If it is a tax, they should not have ruled on it until next year.

The commerce clause argument was a stupid one.  Insurance is regulated at the state level.  Currently you cannot purchase insurance policies from out of state in all states except Georgia. 

Do you know who knew all of this from Day 1?
The former president of the Harvard Law Review.


archimedes

Quote from: Squirl on June 28, 2012, 12:23:22 PM
if it is a tax.

If it's a tax?  Of corse it's a tax.  Anyone who has read the law knows it's a tax.  It doesn't matter what the president said on a talk show,  it only matters what is written in the law.  It's written as a tax. It was before and it still is now.  Justice Roberts had the sense to cut through all the bs to get to a correct legal reading outside of all the political bs.

As far as standing,   the Supremes can choose to hear a case before the tax has been paid if they choose to and the defendants raise no objection (not only did the defendants not object, but the plaintiffs also encouraged the Supremes to make a decision now).  They could have chosen to dismiss the case for lack of standing now,  then ruled the law constitutional two years later.  What good would that have done anyone?

Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough,  and I will move the world.

Squirl

Quote from: archimedes on June 28, 2012, 12:47:21 PM
If it's a tax?  Of corse it's a tax.  Anyone who has read the law knows it's a tax.  It doesn't matter what the president said on a talk show,  it only matters what is written in the law. 

At no point is it actually a direct written tax, it was written just vague enough that the administration could argue in court that it wasn't a tax.  Which, they did in fact argue.  The Obama administration briefed and argued for the entire first day of the three day arguments before the Supreme Court, that it wasn't a tax.  They had to appoint an entire third party to even argue it was a tax.
http://www.cov.com/rlong/

Of course they didn't appoint a tax attorney to argue tax law.

That is of course after the Obama administration argued at the district level that there was no standing to bring the case because it was a tax.  Then the administration reversed its position on appeal.
Quote from: archimedes on June 28, 2012, 12:47:21 PM
As far as standing,   the Supremes can choose to hear a case before the tax has been paid if they choose to and the defendants raise no objection (not only did the defendants not object, but the plaintiffs also encouraged the Supremes to make a decision now).  They could have chosen to dismiss the case for lack of standing now, then ruled the law constitutional two years later.  What good would that have done anyone?

I disagree.  If it was such a clear issue of law, they wouldn't have needed to devote the entire first day of arguments to it.  Even the Supreme Court disagrees:

But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a "tax" for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

page 2.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

It is not about what "good" it would do, it is about being consistent in the law.  It is simply part of the intellectual dishonesty that comes from the Supreme Court of the United States.


archimedes

We'll have to agree to disagree.

"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. Pp. 11–"

I think the intellectual dishonesty is on the part of the people who rail against "judicial activism" but then expect the court to do just that when they don't like a law or policy.   For Justice Roberts to rule any other way would have been judicial activism,  greatly overstepping the boundaries of what the courts powers should be.

Roberts is a conservative who understands and respects the separation of powers.

The power to change the law remains,  and rightfully so,  with Congress.   

I understand your point, squirl,  I just disagree.   d*
Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough,  and I will move the world.

Squirl

I agree about the judicial activism part.  The place of the courts is to over rule laws that are unconstitional or vague, and to protect minority rights.

I read that line.  Then it goes on to state "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., 259 U.S. 20, 36–37 (1922); Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767, 779 (1994)"

So they have massive case law against them, and not a single case law citation in support of the that opinion.  The Opinion that they came up with just happens to expand the power of the Supreme Court and lets them have their say in the matter now.  The Obama administratrion, Congress, and the states are all fine with it because they want their answer now, not two years from now after trillions of dollars have been spent.

What I fear it will do is give certain people, (cough, ehem), the ability to argue against effiecient collection or implimentations of the tax code and jam the courts with litigation, and impede the ability of the U.S. government to collect "penalties" in the future.  Sorry, I already see ways that people  ;) can use this decision to screw with the government.