View Full Version : Is Obamacare burnt toast?
Doc Safari
04-03-12, 11:29
Do you think the SCOTUS will strike it down all or in part?
If so: What then?
If not: What then?
What do you think will happen to the country, economy, and whatnot?
Will we see the "dictator" in Barry come out and decide to implement it through regulations anyway?
What say you?
crusader377
04-03-12, 12:08
I think the individual mandate will go but the rest of the law will probably stay. Even more importantly, I hope what ever is overturned is done so by a wide margin ideally 6-3 or better.
The individuals date will be struck down. The rest will stay c
Which will eventually lead to single payer because all insurance companies will go broke.
I think the individual mandate will go but the rest of the law will probably stay. Even more importantly, I hope what ever is overturned is done so by a wide margin ideally 6-3 or better.
While I agree with your estimated outcome, I think it will be a 5-4 decision.
It's the government. They're going to screw us.
I have no idea what will happen. I know what I hope will happen.
It's a shame we got "this package" (just to see what is in it) because we really do need health care reform. It's a damn mess and people who need it can't afford it "as is."
But solving the problem of the uninsured by simply requiring them to buy insurance is as absurd as solving the homeless problem by requiring them to buy a home.
I think it will pass. Our government has so much corruption woven into it's fabric now that logic and common sense have long disappeared.
Doc Safari
04-03-12, 12:58
But solving the problem of the uninsured by simply requiring them to buy insurance is as absurd as solving the homeless problem by requiring them to buy a home.
Very well put.
What they should have done is open up the competition among insurance companies by allowing them to sell insurance nationwide instead of just within a state as it is now, and what the insurance companies should have to give up in order to get that is to cover pre-existing conditions.
Gee, that didn't even take 2,700 pages.
But then again, we all know the law is really about creating a mechanism by which every aspect of American life can be controlled under the excuse of "health care". It has nothing to do with making sure more people have access to health care.
The most irritating thing is that part of this was caused by the government forcing hospitals to treat anyone that comes in with out ability or intent to pay. Then hospitals charge others more to compensate for the loss which insurance will pay.
Government created the free rider effect in the first place then want to force everyone else to pay for that.
**** 'em.
I guess I should answer the question: I want the whole thing gone but think they will strike down only the mandate.
The most irritating thing is that part of this was caused by the government forcing hospitals to treat anyone that comes in with out ability or intent to pay. Then hospitals charge others more to compensate for the loss which insurance will pay.
Government created the free rider effect in the first place then want to force everyone else to pay for that.
**** 'em.
I guess I should answer the question: I want the whole thing gone but think they will strike down only the mandate.
It's a lot more than that. Uninsured emergency care is just a drop in the bucket.
State (which vary) and federal laws require insurance to cover certain things that insurance just isn't meant to cover. Most of these laws require that ALL policies carry them. So as a man, I have buy insurance that covers OB/GYN procedures, pre-natal care, and birth control.
The real problem is that Government started monkeying with health care at all. "Reform" like every other "reform" mandate before it is based on correcting the tangled shitstorm of a mess the government created in the first place with regulation.
The law should be struck down entirely as it does not have a separability clause in it. I'm guessing that the "individual mandate" will be struck down, but that prog-ish pussy Kennedy will join the leftists in divining a separation (which isn't legal for them to do, but what do they care??) and the rest of the fetid mess will likely stand, further encumbering and destroying the American health care system, thereby requiring, of course, further "reform" in the future.....
**** 'em.
My feelings exactly.
crusader377
04-03-12, 13:47
The big problem IMO with both the current healthcare system and Obama Care is that in America we combine the worse traits of private and public healthcare forms of delivery. Like everything else in this country Crony Capitalism rules. On the government side of the house, the federal govt creates endless regulation and red tape along with providing preferrential treatment to certain companies. The private side we have widespread fraud and the push for unnecessary healthcare services in order to bill medicare and the insurance companies. In addition, administrative costs of insurance companies are many times the rate in comparison to other industrialized nations.
The_War_Wagon
04-03-12, 14:06
I am PRAYING for #2, and it seems the whole mess stands a decent chance of being tossed...
The big problem IMO with both the current healthcare system and Obama Care is that in America we combine the worse traits of private and public healthcare forms of delivery. Like everything else in this country Crony Capitalism rules. On the government side of the house, the federal govt creates endless regulation and red tape along with providing preferrential treatment to certain companies. The private side we have widespread fraud and the push for unnecessary healthcare services in order to bill medicare and the insurance companies. In addition, administrative costs of insurance companies are many times the rate in comparison to other industrialized nations.
:blink:
You sure about that? Please provide cite.
crusader377
04-03-12, 14:30
:blink:
You sure about that? Please provide cite.
Here you go:
There is alot of information out there on the extremely high adminstrative cost in healthcare compared to the rest of the world.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-money-traps-in-us-health-care.html?_r=1
http://www.thebubblebubble.com/healthcare-bubble/
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/corporate-news/116745-hospital-profits-raise-eyebrows-as-medical-costs-continue-to-soar
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-09/news/bs-ed-health-costs-20110609_1_health-care-care-spending-david-himmelstein
The interesting thing is that most people are completely unaware of the extensive systemic fraud in the American healthcare system.
Here you go:
There is alot of information out there on the extremely high adminstrative cost in healthcare compared to the rest of the world.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-money-traps-in-us-health-care.html?_r=1
http://www.thebubblebubble.com/healthcare-bubble/
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/corporate-news/116745-hospital-profits-raise-eyebrows-as-medical-costs-continue-to-soar
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-09/news/bs-ed-health-costs-20110609_1_health-care-care-spending-david-himmelstein
The interesting thing is that most people are completely unaware of the extensive systemic fraud in the American healthcare system.
Very interesting. It is worth noting that the studies quoted therein actually examined healthcare "system" admin. costs. I didn't go digging into the studies themselves, but it would be interesting to find out how the researchers defined "systems". If "system" includes (as I suspect) governmental overhead (because it would have to, many of the nations in the comparison are single-payer) I have to question the fairness of the comparison as I (again) suspect that admin. costs of the "insurance companies" are likely also added to the admin. costs of the U.S. government to come up with those numbers.
I'm also left wondering if the profit margin of the insurance providers are counted as "administrative overhead."
ETA: I'm definitely going to have to wade through the studies and digest them as they are entirely new to me. Thank you for posting the articles.
crusader377
04-03-12, 14:50
Very interesting. It is worth noting that the studies quoted therein actually examined healthcare "system" admin. costs. I didn't go digging into the studies themselves, but it would be interesting to find out how the researchers defined "systems". If "system" includes (as I suspect) governmental overhead (because it would have to, many of the nations in the comparison are single-payer) I have to question the fairness of the comparison as I (again) suspect that admin. costs of the "insurance companies" are likely also added to the admin. costs of the U.S. government to come up with those numbers.
I'm also left wondering if the profit margin of the insurance providers are counted as "administrative overhead."
ETA: I'm definitely going to have to wade through the studies and digest them as they are entirely new to me. Thank you for posting the articles.
Here is another article and google patient recruitment to charge medicaid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-seek-more-er-patients-even-as-medicaid-tries-to-lessen-demand/2011/07/01/gIQADoB7WJ_story.html
Some hospitals particularly corporate healthcare providers are now recruiting homeless and poor people to use their facilities so they can charge the goverment through medicaid.
Doc Safari
04-03-12, 15:06
Eisenhower warned of the "military industrial complex." I believe we need to beware the "medical industrial complex." I have been suspicious for many years that all these mammograms, colonscopies, and whatnot are being "pushed" on people early and often so that the medical industrial complex makes more money. I think it's funny in a sad way that as soon as Obamacare passed then all of a sudden a lot of these tests were being "rethought" as not being as necessary as before.
I also think that the medical profession is in bed with the pharmaceutical industry, and they put the cart before the horse by inventing some "treatment" or drug and then proceed to go out and find people to use it on. I won't go so far as to say they "invent" diseases, but I do believe they make every effort to insure that the standards for diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, smelly feet, or whatever, are continually revised downward so that more and more people are enslaved to expensive treatments and the fat cats reap huge profits.
It's just my opinion, but you'll never convince me otherwise.
Here is another article and google patient recruitment to charge medicaid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-seek-more-er-patients-even-as-medicaid-tries-to-lessen-demand/2011/07/01/gIQADoB7WJ_story.html
Some hospitals particularly corporate healthcare providers are now recruiting homeless and poor people to use their facilities so they can charge the goverment through medicaid.
I was well aware the system is being gamed, but that isn't administrative overhead, it's fraud.
It's just my opinion, but you'll never convince me otherwise.
:rolleyes:
Wonderful, exactly the kind of sober approach needed to fix a very serious problem. :fie:
crusader377
04-03-12, 15:14
Eisenhower warned of the "military industrial complex." I believe we need to beware the "medical industrial complex." I have been suspicious for many years that all these mammograms, colonscopies, and whatnot are being "pushed" on people early and often so that the medical industrial complex makes more money. I think it's funny in a sad way that as soon as Obamacare passed then all of a sudden a lot of these tests were being "rethought" as not being as necessary as before.
I also think that the medical profession is in bed with the pharmaceutical industry, and they put the cart before the horse by inventing some "treatment" or drug and then proceed to go out and find people to use it on. I won't go so far as to say they "invent" diseases, but I do believe they make every effort to insure that the standards for diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, smelly feet, or whatever, are continually revised downward so that more and more people are enslaved to expensive treatments and the fat cats reap huge profits.
It's just my opinion, but you'll never convince me otherwise.
Don't get me started on big Pharma. Now days perscription drugs kill three times more people a year in the U.S. than illegal drugs yet we spend nearly $40 billion a year in law enforcement spending on the War against drugs. Another fun fact is that drug costs in the U.S. are many times higher than the rest of the world. The American people are constantly played for suckers.
The only way this will really be a win is if it's a 7-2 decision. Sotomayor and Kagan don't even need to bother showing up, we already know they've cast their lot with Obama.
crusader377
04-03-12, 15:17
I was well aware the system is being gamed, but that isn't administrative overhead, it's fraud.
You are right. Thats me just going off on a tangent. I just like sharing information that I have learned because we need more people educated on the reasons why healthcare is so expensive in this country.
Doc Safari
04-03-12, 15:25
:rolleyes:
Wonderful, exactly the kind of sober approach needed to fix a very serious problem. :fie:
I know it's a way of saying "paranoia is just a higher form of awareness", but since I can only cite numerous examples of anecdotal evidence and not actual "links to articles" I thought it was appropriate to call it "just my opinion".
In my mind, though, I firmly believe there is ample evidence of how the medical profession deliberately keeps people sick instead of finding a "cure" because there's no money in finding a cure but there is in treating diseases. That is why I said, "You'll never convince me otherwise."
I think it can only be #2 or #3.
When I was first made aware of the individual mandate I thought there was a 95% chance it would go to the Supreme Court and if it did a 100% it would be tossed out in its entirety 5-4. I have never accepted it as law in my mind because I so strongly believe this.
With more people being educated to the original intent of the Constitution, the unconstitutionality of dozens of government organizations is finally being understood.
The fact that the Federal government is going to manage national health care is in itself profoundly and fundamentally unconstitutional. Only a very expansive and imaginative reading, like has been done since the early 1900's, could reason that the Fed Gov had this power.
The individual mandate it is a very technical constitutional problem. Maybe if the Democraps actually read the bill before the rushed it through some would have identified this fatal flaw and tried some something else.
If this goes against the Administration, I'm gonna sit back and wait to see which of Obama's cronies claim that the SCOTUS is racist. :D
Eisenhower warned of the "military industrial complex." I believe we need to beware the "medical industrial complex." I have been suspicious for many years that all these mammograms, colonscopies, and whatnot are being "pushed" on people early and often so that the medical industrial complex makes more money. I think it's funny in a sad way that as soon as Obamacare passed then all of a sudden a lot of these tests were being "rethought" as not being as necessary as before.
I also think that the medical profession is in bed with the pharmaceutical industry, and they put the cart before the horse by inventing some "treatment" or drug and then proceed to go out and find people to use it on. I won't go so far as to say they "invent" diseases, but I do believe they make every effort to insure that the standards for diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, smelly feet, or whatever, are continually revised downward so that more and more people are enslaved to expensive treatments and the fat cats reap huge profits.
It's just my opinion, but you'll never convince me otherwise.
All these changes to early or yearly screenings is to save the system at the expense of the individual.
Moose-Knuckle
04-03-12, 17:24
If this goes against the Administration, I'm gonna sit back and wait to see which of Obama's cronies claim that the SCOTUS is racist. :D
Oh we all know Justice Thomas is a "sell-out". :rolleyes:
The only way this will really be a win is if it's a 7-2 decision. Sotomayor and Kagan don't even need to bother showing up, we already know they've cast their lot with Obama.
That result would almost make the entire ordeal worth it.
parishioner
04-03-12, 17:47
In my mind, though, I firmly believe there is ample evidence of how the medical profession deliberately keeps people sick instead of finding a "cure" because there's no money in finding a cure but there is in treating diseases. That is why I said, "You'll never convince me otherwise."
There is also ample evidence to the contrary. Our hospital, in coordination with neurologists and other administrators, has successfully implemented an algorithm for treating stroke patients that has decreased the amount of stroke related deaths as well as the amount of patients with significant physical and cognitive impairments secondary to stroke in our community. What motivated them to do that?
That said I have no idea how this whole thing will shake out. All I know is it won't improve anything and will more than likely exacerbate the issue.
davidjinks
04-03-12, 18:20
You're missing what this actually is...
If you can't afford the insurance, you get subsidized health care.
Which means: Those who work and get paid, will be forced to buy the health care at a much much higher price, than what it is now, which will in turn off-set the cost of those less fortunate.
Hasn't anyone gotten this whole scheme yet? Look into how many politicians who own stock in health care companies...
This, illegally forced health care, is what it already is...those who don't have health insurance get the medical care anyway, stiff the system and we (Taxpayers) pay the tab. Just like using the ER...you ain't gettin turned away, you will be cared for...at someone else's expense! They just title with all feel good words.
Steyr,
Please don't take this personally. I'm venting on this issue and your post just got my attention.
I have no idea what will happen. I know what I hope will happen.
It's a shame we got "this package" (just to see what is in it) because we really do need health care reform. It's a damn mess and people who need it can't afford it "as is."
But solving the problem of the uninsured by simply requiring them to buy insurance is as absurd as solving the homeless problem by requiring them to buy a home.
Redistribution of wealth at it's finest.
Democracy is the road to socialism. - Karl Marx
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74796.html
A federal appellate judge in Texas on Tuesday demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder write a three-page, single-spaced memo by midday Thursday explaining why the federal judiciary can strike down federal laws on constitutional grounds, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The request — from 5th Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan-appointee — seemed to be a direct shot at Obama, who said Monday that the Supreme Court would be guilty of an “unprecedented” act of “judicial activism” if it strikes down the health care reform law.
Smith made the request during oral argument on a case involving physician-owned hospitals according to a press release from Physician Hospitals of America. The arguments Tuesday were over whether the health care reform law’s limitations on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals are constitutional. Physician Hospitals of America and Texas Spine & Joint Hospital filed the lawsuit in 2010. Most of the lawsuits against the health care reform law are on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, but this case was allowed to move forward because it covers a different piece of the health care law.
A lawyer who was in the courtroom said the request came before a Justice Department attorney could begin her argument in the case.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74796.html#ixzz1r1cSc3uH
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74796.html
And this...
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."*
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1iyHEyd
In my mind, though, I firmly believe there is ample evidence of how the medical profession deliberately keeps people sick instead of finding a "cure" because there's no money in finding a cure but there is in treating diseases. That is why I said, "You'll never convince me otherwise."
There is no money in keeping people sick either, since a lot of the sick ones don't pay anyway and their bills get written off.
My wife is an ICU nurse in a Cardiac ICU. A good many of their patients are "charity" cases and keep coming back over and over as they are "non-compliant", meaning, they don't take their medicine, stay on their diets, etc. Which you would think would mean a guaranteed income for the hospital and doctors. But these people also usually are not paying their own bill, have no insurance, etc. and their stuff gets written off or the hospital gets a token payment from a government program, but which does not cover costs at all.
--
In my mind, though, I firmly believe there is ample evidence of how the medical profession deliberately keeps people sick instead of finding a "cure" because there's no money in finding a cure but there is in treating diseases. That is why I said, "You'll never convince me otherwise."
Not sure about the whole keep them sick thing, but I believe that there is a lot to be said for keeping them on the tit so to speak. There is a long term prescription for everything now days, even mourning a lost one. All of these long term pills require regular follow ups and regular payments from insurance. It also seems to me that every single thing takes multiple trips to the doctor to finally diagnose and treat effectively cause there is little to no diagnosing involved. Symptom chasing seems to be the norm.
Maybe I just have crappy doctors in my AO.
Belmont31R
04-05-12, 18:32
Redistribution of wealth at it's finest.
Democracy is the road to socialism. - Karl Marx
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx
This is why I get so sick of hearing the word democracy being used by liberals because its specifically meant to undermine the protections we have. Rights are there for the minority not the majority, and in a democracy the majority could just vote to do away with minority rights (don't mean that like racial minority just a minority of the populace which could be 49% of the people).
With a constitutional republic we have, and an "unelected" supreme court there are protections in place with a group of people who are not controlled by 51% of the population. These safeguards are very important in our society, and without them 51% of the people could vote to enslave the other 49%. Our system is not perfect, and given enough time it would happen anyways but that is why the people are the ultimate check and balance. No system is perfect or immune from wrong. Our system has lasted well over 200 years and we are just now getting to this point when its already been accepted in other countries with much younger governments for decades. Look at the current German government which is less than 25 years old, and they have no rights like we do and their government is much more powerful. So our Founders did give us a system that would take a long time to get to 'that' point.
But back to the democracy thing....liberals want to convince everyone we are a democracy and that majority should rule. This is to grind down the previous protections we have had, and "give power to the people!". So 51% can put the other 49% in death camps if they want its legal. Its democracy! A constitutional republic prevents 51% from sending 49% to death camps but like I said given enough time even our system can be eroded. Already they did away with state legislature elected Federal Senators (yes they used to be elected by the each respective state legislature) and moved that to a popular vote so the states have ZERO say in the Federal government anymore. The House was supposed to be for the people and the Senate for the states. That was actually a 'check' we have lost. Now we have laws coming down putting huge unfunded burdens on the states, and what do the states have to do? They either have to raise taxes or cut other current programs. That bridge might not get work work done this year because they had to pay millions of dollars for some Federally mandated program the Feds never paid for. Or those schools might not get the funding they had in years past so our property taxes have to be raised locally to make up for it.
This does tie into this health care thing because once again the Feds are mandating states pay billions of dollars across the country for 'their' program they hid costs away in my making the states pay for them. The Feds might spend 2 trillion on this over 10 years but the states are going to be paying tens of billions more over 10 years. Congress figured out they could do all this shit and pass the cost onto the states. The states no longer have representation in Congress so what recourse do they have? Go to the Supreme Court who Congress put in place in the first place?
And this redefining of the Constitution is nothing new. The last large expansion of Federal powers was during FDR specifically in 1939 when SCOTUS 'gave' up on the 'War on the Supreme Court' and 1939 is when the NFA was ruled Constitution, several New Deal laws, Social Security, and a host of others. Like I said our system is not perfect, and the number of SCOTUS justices is not set at a specific number. Theres nothing really stopping Congress, legally, from adding justices so their laws are passed. Of course it takes the President in on this, too, but its just a game of power among these people.
That result would almost make the entire ordeal worth it.
Not gonna happen. Ginsburg is a solid progressive vote along with Sotomayor and Kagen. I predict 5-4 to overturn the bill as Breyer will join the ladies in the dissenting opinion.
My gut tells me that only the mandate will be stricken. This would work to the GOP's short term advantage as Obama will expend tons of political capitol during the campaign to save what is left of the bill. The man simply cannot let it go.
I doubt that the remnants will result in a single payer system since there will not be enough progressive votes to pass such as bill for a long time. Instead, I bet the remaining portions will be quickly repealed or modified as legislators face the reality of rising healthcare costs.
The real question is can the GOP use the opportunity to propose their own viable healthcare reform bill that reduces the role of govt in our lives.
Doc Safari
04-06-12, 09:02
I almost expect the SCOTUS to strike the whole thing down, and for Barry to double-down and say he's going to implement the law anyway.
I called into the mike church show on Tuesday the 3rd. I basically said that since last week, the few public statements that BO had made have sounded quite angry, with considerably more "sting" to his words than is normal for him.
I believe this is because Elena the monguloid told the white house what the decision was. We won't know until scotus releases their written opinions, but i bet BO knows. And if he's been on a temper tantrum since the decision, well, good news.
Church agrees that BO knows the decision, but not that it's good for us. Because mitt and the decepticons are going to "repeal and replace"
Belmont31R
06-27-12, 22:34
Tomorrow is the big day. Based on who has released opinions I HOPE Kennedy will go with the 4 conservatives.
**** SCOTUS
The only honorable one in the bunch is Antonin Scalia
VooDoo6Actual
06-28-12, 00:59
**** SCOTUS
The only honorable one in the bunch is Antonin Scalia
Check.
We're hosed.
Part of that Big Fookin Train.
Eurodriver
06-28-12, 07:30
**** SCOTUS
The only honorable one in the bunch is Antonin Scalia
I was out last night with this gorgeous hottie. She can get it man, let me tell you.
Out of nowhere she starts talking about Scalia's dissent on the AZ Immigration law and how he's "a senile old man" and "wants to restrict the free movement of blacks."
...I let it slide, because later that night when her mouth was full I told her to say Obama. It was so worth it.
/randomstory
Eurodriver
06-28-12, 09:08
Individual mandate unconstitutional.
This just in: individual mandate has been* upheld.
RancidSumo
06-28-12, 09:26
The person writing the updates on CNN needs to learn how to write. They don't even make sense and I can't figure out what is going on.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 09:26
How much more tyrannical can you get? Don't buy what we tell you, just for being a living human being, and we can "tax" your money away!
I wonder what other "products" the government has in mind we have to buy or face "taxes"?
How much more tyrannical can you get? Don't buy what we tell you, just for being a living human being, and we can "tax" your money away!
I wonder what other "products" the government has in mind we have to buy or face "taxes"?
Exactly, the door is wide open now..
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 09:29
I've been surfing the news sites and it's chaos out there.
Sounds like the mandate was upheld as a tax but not the order to force you to buy health insurance.
Of course, this could change as the news websites get their shit together....
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 09:33
I've been surfing the news sites and it's chaos out there.
Sounds like the mandate was upheld as a tax but not the order to force you to buy health insurance.
Of course, this could change as the news websites get their shit together....
Well its in the terminology. Its not upheld under certain clauses but is upheld under Congress' taxing authority. So if you don't buy what they tell you to they can tax you for it.
Well its in the terminology. Its not upheld under certain clauses but is upheld under Congress' taxing authority. So if you don't buy what they tell you to they can tax you for it.
I think it is all bullshit. I am tempted to not buy healthcare and see what happens, if anything at all. I have to wait a couple years though.
John Roberts is a coward and a liar.
God Damn that man
RancidSumo
06-28-12, 09:40
“[Updated at 10:06 a.m. ET]*In a landmark decision that will impact the nation for decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a key provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law, ruling that requiring people to have health insurance violates the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts had noted that however that the mandate would have been struck down based on the commerce clause , saying it would “open a new and vast domain” for Congressional power."
This is the CNN post I was talking about earlier. Now that they've cleared things up, we are ****ed. This ruling is going to impact us just as badly as an expansion of the commerce clause would have, both with this bill an with others down the road.
Exactly, the door is wide open now..
Yep. What else is government going to decide that needs to be "mandated" for our benefit? Mandate that guns need to be turned in because "they are a public health menace"? Or that its mandated we all have to drive a Prius or a Volt to save the enviorment?
Yep. What else is government going to decide that needs to be "mandated" for our benefit? Mandate that guns need to be turned in because "they are a public health menace"? Or that its mandated we all have to drive a Prius or a Volt to save the enviorment?
Doesn't sound so crazy now, does it?
Unbelievable.
davidjinks
06-28-12, 09:53
Can someone please explain to me where in the constitution it says we have to have health care?
Furthermore can someone put this in laymans terms for me???
RancidSumo
06-28-12, 09:57
Can someone please explain to me where in the constitution it says we have to have health care?
Furthermore can someone put this in laymans terms for me???
If I'm understanding this right, and I haven't read te decision yet so I might not be, they can't require you to buy it but they can tax you if you don't have it.
Sickening- Individual mandate is alive- as a ****ing "TAX". Obama said specifically it wasn't a tax to the American people. And it gets upheld as a ****ing tax. The dog and pony show has gone on too long.
The list of Grievances gets larger as liberty diminishes; when the **** are we really going to do something about it...
Man this country is going down the toilet so fast; ****ing depressing and sad.
What the **** else are they going to force us to buy as a "TAX"?
This is a terrible precedent- to allow our govt. to force us to buy products and services at their will and "penalize" us in teh name of "Taxes" if we don't comply.
Look slike SCOTUS is impotent and "checks and balances" are gone taking a vacation at the moment...
What the ****!?!?!?!?!
Anyone else feeling like we are at the end of the rope?
Can someone please explain to me where in the constitution it says we have to have health care?
Furthermore can someone put this in laymans terms for me???
We are the few that care what the Constitution says anymore.
I am reading this as, so long as they word it as a "tax" they have the ability to do as they please............as long as it's for our own good, of course.:rolleyes:
kaiservontexas
06-28-12, 09:58
Yes I feel at the end of the rope.
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 10:03
I will tell you what I think happens now:
1. The Tea Party just became the most powerful party in the country.
2. The economy will tank worse than it is now.
3. The desire to repeal Obamacare will now be the overriding campaign issue on the Republican side.
4. As each provision of this law goes into effect it will contribute to the bankruptcy of the USA. I see us turn into Greece on an accelerated pace now.
5. The call to "throw the bums out" will be a defeaning din come November.
kaiservontexas
06-28-12, 10:04
Well Doc the stock market is dropping. Nobody is mentioning it, but I see the down arrow ever since the ruling. It is in the right hand bottom corner on the FNC ticker on my tv.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 10:05
Yep. What else is government going to decide that needs to be "mandated" for our benefit? Mandate that guns need to be turned in because "they are a public health menace"? Or that its mandated we all have to drive a Prius or a Volt to save the enviorment?
No they will just tax you for not owning or buying certain products. Don't own a green car? Tax! Don't buy enough fruits and veggies? Tax!
This is a HUGE expansion of power for the government. Basically for not owning certain products or using services they deem you need to have they can tax you.
Gee, I wonder how long before Obama and his cronies get on the TV to gloat over the ruling? I'll bet they praise the SCOTUS for ruling in their favor after saying if it went against them, the Court would be practicing partisan politics. :rolleyes:
Gee, I wonder how long before Obama and his cronies get on the TV to gloat over the ruling? I'll bet they praise the SCOTUS for ruling in their favor after saying if it went against them, the Court would be practicing partisan politics. :rolleyes:
I think within the hour or so the gloating will begin.. I'm betting the left will no longer accuse Roberts as a partisan hack. I'm so disgusted right now... :mad:
On the other hand I think Doc has a handle on a good possible outcome.
Target remains, I repeat, target remains...
http://www.availableimages.com/images/pictures/1996/independenceday/aph_13.jpg
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 10:14
I'm tempted to predict this will be the modern equivalent of the Missouri Compromise, and that it will give rise to a new secessionist movement as the states realize the true burden this will become.
Of course, that's just tinfoil hat stuff, right? :D
davidjinks
06-28-12, 10:24
I want to agree with you. I really do, however...
1. Obama just became the most powerful party in the US.
He will be re-elected because this has passed. We're about to see the unemployment rate skyrocket within the next year.
I have more thoughts but I'm at a loss of logical, adult words right now.
I will tell you what I think happens now:
1. The Tea Party just became the most powerful party in the country.
2. The economy will tank worse than it is now.
3. The desire to repeal Obamacare will now be the overriding campaign issue on the Republican side.
4. As each provision of this law goes into effect it will contribute to the bankruptcy of the USA. I see us turn into Greece on an accelerated pace now.
5. The call to "throw the bums out" will be a defeaning din come November.
CarlosDJackal
06-28-12, 10:26
We're toast!! :suicide:
Individual mandate unconstitutional.
Great call, Casanova. You wanted to be the first to comment and all you did was make a fool of yourself in the wake of the typical braggart crap about the girls, which is now old, irritating and a poor reflection of yourself.
CarlosDJackal
06-28-12, 10:30
Well Doc the stock market is dropping. Nobody is mentioning it, but I see the down arrow ever since the ruling. It is in the right hand bottom corner on the FNC ticker on my tv.
- Dow is down 142+ points
- NASDAQ is down 43+ points
- S&P 500 is down 15+ points
This is what is called a clue. I predict that by the end of the week we will see even worse financial news and obama will be blaming this particular tanking on the previous administration as well. :rolleyes:
Bingo @davidjinks
Many previously non voters were just hatched / campaign funding and strings just multiplied
Perhaps this needs to be embraced. Maybe we should have a look at the following taxes:
1) Tax on owning any motor vehicle. Exemptions available for purely diesel or gas-burning systems.
2) Tax on all commercial energy production. Exemptions available for coal and nuclear sources.
3) Tax on all civil unions and marriages, say around $10k a year per person. Exemptions available for partners of opposite gender.
We'll balance the budget in no time, and smack their agenda around at the same time.
CarlosDJackal
06-28-12, 10:37
How much more tyrannical can you get? Don't buy what we tell you, just for being a living human being, and we can "tax" your money away!
I wonder what other "products" the government has in mind we have to buy or face "taxes"?
The sad thing is those who voted for obama and wanted this healthcare bill does not understand such second and third order effects.
I would love to see someone elected as POTUS who uses this very case law to require every household that does not have a convicted felon in residence to own an RDS equipped AR-15 Carbine with a 14.5" (Basically a semi-automatic version of the M4 - thus requiring an NFA tax stamp) unless they want to get taxed for failing to comply with the US Constitution's requirement for a "well regulated Militia".
I wonder how many of those who support this decision will be bitching then?
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 10:39
I want to agree with you. I really do, however...
1. Obama just became the most powerful party in the US.
He will be re-elected because this has passed. We're about to see the unemployment rate skyrocket within the next year.
I have more thoughts but I'm at a loss of logical, adult words right now.
I think the Tea Party will swell in membership as the "revolt" intensifies.
I put the word "revolt" in quotes to make it clear I'm not talking about an armed insurrection or some horseshit.
Bingo @davidjinks
Many previously non voters were just hatched / campaign funding and strings just multiplied
For who? This guy? :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lmihmlb1LBY
Perhaps this needs to be embraced. Maybe we should have a look at the following taxes:
1) Tax on owning any motor vehicle. Exemptions available for purely diesel or gas-burning systems.
2) Tax on all commercial energy production. Exemptions available for coal and nuclear sources.
3) Tax on all civil unions and marriages, say around $10k a year per person. Exemptions available for partners of opposite gender.
We'll balance the budget in no time, and smack their agenda around at the same time.
Nice angle of attack but more taxes is not the answer.
Yes, it's a bad day. But let this well written WSJ article from yesterday give you some faith in the future.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577492842719751040.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
"Over time, a health-care dinosaur like ObamaCare was likely to implode under its own weight....With or without the Supreme Court's thoughts Thursday on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, that day lies in the future."
Raven Armament
06-28-12, 10:50
Well its in the terminology. Its not upheld under certain clauses but is upheld under Congress' taxing authority. So if you don't buy what they tell you to they can tax you for it.
But Obama says the individual mandate is not a tax. But now it is a tax because Obama got his way.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/
Mauser KAR98K
06-28-12, 10:51
This is going as the second worst SCOTUS decision in history. Number one is Dred Scott v. Sanford. Number three is Plessy v. Ferguson. Look at the results of those cases.
Bet the Republicans are wishing now that they had confirmed the first Bush nomination, now.
BTW: The real threat this opens up to now is Cap and Trade. Hell, the Senate could pass it as is now, or add an amendment that everyone must buy carbon credits or face a tax.
The stock market may be down, but I wish I was in the ammo selling business at the moment. Got find some way to pay the coming fine!
We are ****ed so much we don't know which way is off the bed...oh, are those handcuffs. I didn't agree to that.
RancidSumo
06-28-12, 10:55
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn- ing income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.
After reading the first fifty pages, although I still believe that the law is a terrible idea for many reasons and that it does not match up with what I believe a government should be able to do, I think the court made the correct decision based on the constitution. I need to read the dissent and see what Scalia said next.
Edit: I don't know if correct was the right word. I should have said a reasonable decision as I think there is definitely room for disagreement on the issue.
VooDoo6Actual
06-28-12, 10:56
We are the few that care what the Constitution says anymore.
I don't think we are a few at all. I think the bigger picture is there are people in key positions that are sending a message that the ROL is going to be changed whether the masses like it or not. Hence my comments the system is gamed. Part of that train I referred to & I'm not surprised i the least. Just wait till the election etc. The Decepticons want to seize power not abdicate it.
But Obama says the individual mandate is not a tax.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/
The comments will either be ignored or spun by the left into irrelevance. Few if any liberals will ever care.
Consider how they are silent regarding Obama's "kill list" and the fact that his gun smuggling operation has assisted in many deaths.
Well played Obama, well played.
All the illegals in the country have been getting our ealth care for the past couple decades in our hospitals. This is known and not really disputed, just a sad fact that paying for it has been on the burden of the healthcare industry and government. Now all people in the US will receive free health care paid for by the government, which is in turn paid for by the tax paying population, and the illegals are still not paying for the services they are using here in our country. So this isn't fair right? But the SCOTUS just upheld the decision right? Well, in order to lessen the burden for the American taxpaying population then why don't we just give all the 30+ million illegals amnesty, have them become citizens and begin to pay taxes? Then it will be fair!
Welcome 30+ million new Democratic party voters.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 11:03
After reading the first fifty pages, although I still believe that the law is a terrible idea for many reasons and that it does not match up with what I believe a government should be able to do, I think the court made the correct decision based on the constitution. I need to read the dissent and see what Scalia said next.
Under that theory the government's power is limitless, and thats clearly not what the Constitution was written for.
Its NOT just another thing the government taxes. Taxes have been based on something someone purchased or how much income they made. Now its for NOT doing something.
Like I said....don't buy the products we want you to buy and we'll just take your money from you.
Think gas...you don't get taxed for NOT buying gas. Cigarettes? You get taxed if you buy them. Don't buy them no tax. Don't make a certain amount of money? Don't get taxed. Now its don't do something, and get taxed. A very big distinction, and this ruling says the government can tax you for not buying what they want you to.
I just think its a ****ing sham they go on and on about how our rights have limits and have to meet certain standards to not be restricted, but they are basically saying there is no standard or limits on taxing authority. This should work both ways. Limits on rights within reason and limits on government power. If taxing authority is unlimited so is government power. The ruling basically says government can tax whatever it wants.
davidjinks
06-28-12, 11:06
So if I don't want health care I'm going to be taxed. If I buy health care I won't be taxed.
If I say bullshit, I'm not buying health care because I can't afford it I'll be taxed but I may not be able to afford that tax either. So I don't pay the tax which in turn basically makes me a criminal.
Which then in turn the IRS will garnish my already meager wages and just take that tax from me along with whatever penalties I had incurred. In turn, I'll be broke and won't be able to afford anything anyway because the government has taxed the shot outta me.
So with all that being said, I'll be forced to buy health care.
This is obviously not personally directed at you. Please don't take it that way. I understand what you have posted. This is just one way I see shit going down.
After reading the first fifty pages, although I still believe that the law is a terrible idea for many reasons and that it does not match up with what I believe a government should be able to do, I think the court made the correct decision based on the constitution. I need to read the dissent and see what Scalia said next.
Edit: I don't know if correct was the right word. I should have said a reasonable decision as I think there is definitely room for disagreement on the issue.
I'm tempted to predict this will be the modern equivalent of the Missouri Compromise, and that it will give rise to a new secessionist movement as the states realize the true burden this will become.
Not Secession. Nullification.
State Nullification. Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
Like I've been talking about for a week or two.
We have three choices:
1) Try State Nullification + Vote the marxists out
2) Bloody 2nd Revolution
3) Lose our Liberty and be slaves/thrown into reeducation camps
#1 is the only smart choice. Get the word out
Mauser KAR98K
06-28-12, 11:08
Under that theory the government's power is limitless, and thats clearly not what the Constitution was written for.
Its NOT just another thing the government taxes. Taxes have been based on something someone purchased or how much income they made. Now its for NOT doing something.
Like I said....don't buy the products we want you to buy and we'll just take your money from you.
Think gas...you don't get taxed for NOT buying gas. Cigarettes? You get taxed if you buy them. Don't buy them no tax. Don't make a certain amount of money? Don't get taxed. Now its don't do something, and get taxed. A very big distinction, and this ruling says the government can tax you for not buying what they want you to.
I just think its a ****ing sham they go on and on about how our rights have limits and have to meet certain standards to not be restricted, but they are basically saying there is no standard or limits on taxing authority. This should work both ways. Limits on rights within reason and limits on government power. If taxing authority is unlimited so is government power. The ruling basically says government can tax whatever it wants.
And just think, we started a revolution in the mid 1770s because we were being taxed for everything we bought. Wonder what is going to happen when we start really being taxed for things we don't buy?
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 11:10
Well played Obama, well played.
All the illegals in the country have been getting our ealth care for the past couple decades in our hospitals. This is known and not really disputed, just a sad fact that paying for it has been on the burden of the healthcare industry and government. Now all people in the US will receive free health care paid for by the government, which is in turn paid for by the tax paying population, and the illegals are still not paying for the services they are using here in our country. So this isn't fair right? But the SCOTUS just upheld the decision right? Well, in order to lessen the burden for the American taxpaying population then why don't we just give all the 30+ million illegals amnesty, have them become citizens and begin to pay taxes? Then it will be fair!
Welcome 30+ million new Democratic party voters.
Its not "free". Even if you only make 25k a year all you get is a subsidy. I just looked that up on the washington times "obamacare" calculator and a person with a family of four would have to pay out over 1k a year. If they don't buy health insurance the fine is over 2k dollars.
This is also going to make it harder to find work because of the employer mandate. Its going to be a lot costlier for employers to hire each person, and that means they have less money to hire additional employees and will be less likely to replace people as they retire or quit. A lot of this law is funded through forcing others besides the government to pay for it.
Insurance is also going to get a lot more expensive as insurance companies are forced to insure anyone who applies as well as the mandated levels of coverage. Like I said a lot of this law is not even funded by the government. Its going to be paid for by much higher insurance premiums and employer mandates. What the government is paying for is the subsidies.
I said a long time ago but since they could not get single payer like they wanted they created this law to make private health care such a nightmare, and so costly to employers and the populace alike people will be begging for the government to "fix it". Just like mandating hospitals treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay created a problem that needed fixing with more government. Government creates the problem, and fixes it by more loss of freedom and expansion of government. ObamaCare is going to create a problem so massive only the entire takeover of health care by the government will "fix it".
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 11:14
This is also going to make it harder to find work because of the employer mandate. Its going to be a lot costlier for employers to hire each person, and that means they have less money to hire additional employees and will be less likely to replace people as they retire or quit.
You better believe it. Wonder how the left will spin 20% unemployment?
I give it six months before we hit the real second Great Depression.
Wow.. Just saw Stolen Valor Act was overturned... What a day.
Mitch McConnell presents a perfect, clear analysis of this fraud in this brief video response to the ruling. We know that many if not most Americans are flat out stupid, but even they should be able to see the validity of these points.
This is what Romney must now drive home every day. Ideologue liberals must be made to understand that not only were they were lied to, this is going to cost them dearly down the line.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/28/sen_mcconnell_on_obamacare_sold_to_the_american_people_on_decption.html
If that doesn't work and they win in November, I say we plan to Balkanize the nation. The minorities are about to take over anyway, so long as they blindly run to those that provide entitlements we are ****ed regardless. Either that or another revolution, of course.
Montana/Idaho is looking pretty good
montanadave
06-28-12, 11:43
Montana/Idaho is looking pretty good
Hey, I got here first! :lol:
When Eisenhower was president.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 11:45
Not directed at you but frankly only an idiot would have thought ObamaCare would make things cheaper.
Liberal ideology is a fraud. There are several European countries moving away from it, and closer towards free market capitalism than we are. These countries are seeing good economic growth every year.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jun/07/lessons-estonia/
Our country, under both R and D leadership, has been marching to expanded government, spending, and loss of freedom. Blame the populace for electing these people.
RancidSumo
06-28-12, 12:07
Everyone should read the opinion. Specifically pages 31-44. Roberts lays out why they decided to consider it a tax and why it is allowable. Im on my phone and in class so I'm not going to quote several paragraphs because it is a pain in the ass.
They decided it isn't a penalty because it is not an excessive burden nor does it carry any criminal charges (the penalty cannot exceed what the cost of the insurance would have been and the IRS is explicitly forbidden from using criminal persecution to collect the "tax").
Overall, this sucks but there are some good things in the ruling, primarily Roberts systematic rejection of the commerce clause argument. It would have been even worse if the court had ruled that the law was a valid use of the commerce clause, thereby expanding it even more.
I read the dissent and it failed to clearly show (in my opinion as an engineering student, not a law professor) that the majority decision was wrong. The dissent more or less says that the court should rule based on what the language of the bill literally says where as the majority opinion argues that they must decide based on what it practically means (ie it says penalty but it functions exactly like a tax for all legal and practical purposes. Therefore, the court should consider it a tax despite the actual wording). I don't know which one is correct, I'll leave it to people who have enough knowledge of past cases and legal precedents to figure that out.
I want this to be abundantly clear before going on: I am in full support of helping people get affordable health insurance that does not deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. If this is a government run, single payer system that is setup alongside private insurance coverage that can be purchased instead of private health care, similar to the United Kingdom’s government run health care system, or by forcing health insurance companies to provide a health insurance plan to a person by regulation. What I am not in favor of is the way that the United States government is enforcing the individual mandate clause in the Obamacare health act.
The SCOUTS has ruled that under the commerce clause, the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional by forcing someone to buy health care with a 7-2 margin. What the SCOUTS did do is say that if health care is not purchased, with a 5-4 margin, from a private industry entity, then there will be a tax imposed on the person or persons that choose not to have health coverage. This sets precedent on the country and its citizens by regulating a fine on choosing not to do something. This is not the same as taxing on a personal choice, but fining a person based on their choice. What is good for the individual is being put on the wayside for the collective good.
Many people have compared this tax to cigarettes or gas taxes which help drive the national economy by propping up federal budgets and punishing someone by making a choice such as smoking or driving their car to work every day. Obamacare taxes, as a fine, would punish people for choosing not to participate in a system that they do not want to participate due to personal or financial reasons. This sets dangerous precedent for the government to rule on what is good for an individual based on the needs of a few, not the will of an individual.
The United States was set up from the beginning in the Declaration of Independence as the pursuit of ‘…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ but makes no guarantee that a person’s life will be long, free from health problems, or even happiness. Our country was founded on the principle that we all have choices and those choices affect how our lives will be maintained and governed. By choosing to have health care, an individual can be assured that health problems will not be catastrophic and send them to bankruptcy, causing the failing of themselves, and potentially their family as well. By not choosing to have health coverage, they can choose other methods of happiness as they want. It is by choice that we do what we want in this country that will lead to the pursuit of happiness and forcing a person to buy something that they might not want or need by pain of fines is not limiting governmental power.
Precedents that impose fines on an individual for health care paves the road for other similar types of legislation are dangerous, and should be curtailed as much as possible. The type of car one drives, the type of clothing one wears, the type of house one buys, or even what speech is regulated based on fines is a dangerous and long path that will eventually lead to the destruction of what we know as our birth rights that are reinforced in the Bill of Right in the Constitution. We are setting up a government that can strip rights away by creating a debtors prison that will impose fines on what the government chooses what is right for an individual, not what an individual chooses what is right for themselves.
It is the opinion of this author that we, as a nation, are in dangerous times that will see future legislation being passed that will follow a similar path of imposing fines on an individual if that individual doesn’t follow what the government of the United States says is right for them. This spans across political party lines, hurting both the democratic republic that our country is founded on and the individual liberties that we enjoy currently. We have setup a government with unlimited power to tax a person, under penalty of jail by tax evasion that chooses what is best for an individual for the collective good.
Blame the populace for electing these people.
That's just it, who is the "populace" now days? Everything I hear these days is about the latino or black votes and I am become sick of it and them collectively as driving forces of policy. Divisiveness has become liberal/Dem SOP and it will be the death of us, as we should be addressed as one or not at all.
They themselves are the ones who have created the resentment I am displaying here on this difficult day with their selfish, ****ed up agendas. Obama the joke has an ad running encouraging all blacks to "have is back". It is they who are creating the "us vs them" mentality and as you can see it's working well on me here today.
And what the hell has happened to so many white people? Why did they overlook Rev Wright? Why are they allowing Bloomberg to ban sodas in NYC? Is white stupidity accompanied by self-loathing becoming an permanent epidemic? Even the traitor Robert's has signed on to the insanity.
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 12:39
Safetyhit, it may just be that the country has reached that magical tipping point where the majority have learned to vote themselves benefits.
In which case, we are wasting our time here.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 12:51
Romney is not the right answer, either. In his press conference he supports insurance for people with preexisting conditions.
I think we should do this for auto insurance, too. Im gonna go buy a junker and force USAA to pay to fix it!
VooDoo6Actual
06-28-12, 12:59
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/decepticons1.jpg
Raven Armament
06-28-12, 13:01
And what the hell has happened to so many white people?
My guess is they stopped giving a shit.
Romney is not the right answer, either. In his press conference he supports insurance for people with preexisting conditions.
Right now not only would I take him as President, at this point I pray for it to be so. And certainly there could be worse things to be in favor of.
If you are going to get shafted no matter what, it's good to at least be able to pick a smaller stick in order to minimize the damage.
Quit the whining, and do as your told! We're all socialists now...
Quit the whining, and do as your told! We're all socialists now...
Comrade, the great leader would be proud. Keep these decadent pigs in line! For the Homeland!!
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 13:37
Right now not only would I take him as President, at this point I pray for it to be so. And certainly there could be worse things to be in favor of.
If you are going to get shafted no matter what, it's good to at least be able to pick a smaller stick in order to minimize the damage.
Ask the people of mass how that stick has been working for them. Romney gave them the "mandate" a decade ago.
Mauser KAR98K
06-28-12, 14:11
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/decepticons1.jpg
Lol.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8017/7462337266_b4eacba97e.jpg
QuietShootr
06-28-12, 14:12
My guess is they stopped giving a shit.
Who is John Galt?
One of my friends is a third-generation owner of a family business that employs about 70 people. His choice is now to fire 21 of them or close the doors.
My guess is he will have to close the doors. He doesn't have a lot of fat to trim.
Way to go, you pinko ****sticks. One day everyone who knows how to do anything is going to take their hand off the throttle, and this country is going to turn into Zimbabwe. You think you can run things? Go right ahead, mother****ers.
VooDoo6Actual
06-28-12, 14:38
Way to go, you pinko ****sticks. One day everyone who knows how to do anything is going to take their hand off the throttle, and this country is going to turn into Zimbabwe. You think you can run things? Go right ahead, mother****ers.
Oh just wait, lots more to come.
When the Decepticons stack the SCOTUS to enforce ROL because the Deceptions know that history has to re-written w/ some truth for future generations as the world is watching. The guns will be the Decepticons final push.
Here's the fun part follow the bouncing ball, they will turn their enemies enemy into their friends. Patriots become the bad guys because their against the Decepticons. So first by conditioning us to hate pinko's and then befriend the pinko's w/ their form of Decepticomunism government. I bet a Root Beer.
QuietShootr
06-28-12, 14:41
Oh just wait, lots more to come.
When the Decepticons stack the SCOTUS to enforce ROL because the Deceptions know that history has to re-written w/ some truth for future generations as the world is watching. The guns will be the Decepticons final push.
Here's the fun part follow the bouncing ball, they will turn their enemies enemy into their friends. Patriots become the bad guys because their against the Decepticons. So first by conditioning us to hate pinko's and then befriend the pinko's w/ their form of Decepticomunism government. I bet a Root Beer.
I won't take the bet.
Moose-Knuckle
06-28-12, 14:48
"The board is set and the pieces are in motion. . ."
:help:
That's just it, who is the "populace" now days? Everything I hear these days is about the latino or black votes and I am become sick of it and them collectively as driving forces of policy. Divisiveness has become liberal/Dem SOP and it will be the death of us, as we should be addressed as one or not at all.
They themselves are the ones who have created the resentment I am displaying here on this difficult day with their selfish, ****ed up agendas. Obama the joke has an ad running encouraging all blacks to "have is back". It is they who are creating the "us vs them" mentality and as you can see it's working well on me here today.
And what the hell has happened to so many white people? Why did they overlook Rev Wright? Why are they allowing Bloomberg to ban sodas in NYC? Is white stupidity accompanied by self-loathing becoming an permanent epidemic? Even the traitor Robert's has signed on to the insanity.
There is a reason why only free, land owning, tax paying men could vote in this country.
The founding fathers never intended for everyone living here to be able to vote. There is also no federal right for any citizen to vote in a federal election.
Giving more and more people the right to vote is the root cause of every problem this country has.
Roberts is what you get when you have a RINO as president for 8 years.
UN****INGBELIEVABLE.
I have no words.
There is a reason why only free, land owning, tax paying men could vote in this country.
The founding fathers never intended for everyone living here to be able to vote. There is also no federal right for any citizen to vote in a federal election.
Giving more and more people the right to vote is the root cause of every problem this country has.
Great post. However here is where karma came back to bite them (or shall I say us) in the ass. Our forefathers brought blacks here as slaves and eventually those slaves very justifiably became free. Now, a far too large proportion of them are hostile regarding that period and are by cultural nature destroying one city and community after another while also infringing on our Constitution.
Hindsight therefore indicates that our forefathers were short-sighted, never imagining they would all be made citizens or replaced by machinery in the fields.
We allowed Mexicans to infiltrate illegally on a massive scale, now these foreigners have actually established a say in our government's policies. This while their country has evolved from mass human sacrifice mass drug violence and corruption.
I never thought I see the day where I would say this, I swear to all of you black, white or hispanic...but an well organized, respectable all white club or allegiance is sounding damn good to me right now. The blacks have several, as do the latinos. What's our problem, no collective backbone?
I never thought I see the day where I would say this, I swear to all of you black, white or hispanic...but an well organized, respectable all white club or allegiance is sounding damn good to me right now. The blacks have several, as do the latinos. What's our problem, no collective backbone?
And it would be populated by 60% white people who voted for Obama, support Obama and think Obamacare is the greatest thing any US President has ever done.
We are way beyond race. This is an issue of socialism having popular majority and the entitlement mentality of that population.
All the traditional safeguards have been effectively undermined as we have seen.
And it would be populated by 60% white people who voted for Obama, support Obama and think Obamacare is the greatest thing any US President has ever done.
I normally agree with 90% of what you say here, but you fell into the other 10% with this assessment. Still even if you're close to right, pretty sure you can reduce that number by 75% at this point.
I mean really, how many white voters does he have left, and most importantly how many of them would take the time to join an all white organization?
His white votes will this time come from gays, union members and the self-loathers generated by the liberal education system. The rest go Republican.
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 16:37
And it would be populated by 60% white people who voted for Obama, support Obama and think Obamacare is the greatest thing any US President has ever done.
We are way beyond race. This is an issue of socialism having popular majority and the entitlement mentality of that population.
All the traditional safeguards have been effectively undermined as we have seen.
This. And we have turned our backs on God who gets to administer the ultimate payback.
lifebreath
06-28-12, 16:46
There is a reason why only free, land owning, tax paying men could vote in this country.
The founding fathers never intended for everyone living here to be able to vote. There is also no federal right for any citizen to vote in a federal election.
Giving more and more people the right to vote is the root cause of every problem this country has.
Exactly. We have devolved into a social democracy, and never have the words of Winston Churchill been truer:
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
... or ...
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
or
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
or
"There is no such thing as a good tax."
A sad day in American history, today.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 16:53
Everyone should read the opinion. Specifically pages 31-44. Roberts lays out why they decided to consider it a tax and why it is allowable. Im on my phone and in class so I'm not going to quote several paragraphs because it is a pain in the ass.
They decided it isn't a penalty because it is not an excessive burden nor does it carry any criminal charges (the penalty cannot exceed what the cost of the insurance would have been and the IRS is explicitly forbidden from using criminal persecution to collect the "tax").
Overall, this sucks but there are some good things in the ruling, primarily Roberts systematic rejection of the commerce clause argument. It would have been even worse if the court had ruled that the law was a valid use of the commerce clause, thereby expanding it even more.
I read the dissent and it failed to clearly show (in my opinion as an engineering student, not a law professor) that the majority decision was wrong. The dissent more or less says that the court should rule based on what the language of the bill literally says where as the majority opinion argues that they must decide based on what it practically means (ie it says penalty but it functions exactly like a tax for all legal and practical purposes. Therefore, the court should consider it a tax despite the actual wording). I don't know which one is correct, I'll leave it to people who have enough knowledge of past cases and legal precedents to figure that out.
I think where he is wrong is that at no point has Congress laid out a tax just for being a human being, and NOT purchasing something.
This a NEW precedent and he upheld it right off the bat.
Taxes in the past have all based on action. This tax is based on inaction. If you don't go out there, and earn an income to buy insurance or sign up for a government benefit (if you qualify) you will get taxed.
Are there no limitations on this power? What if the government said everyone has to drive a Chevy Volt or face 25k a year in taxes? Is that legal?
Wheres the check and balance when SCOTUS gives Congress an unlimited taxing authority they can use to control people outside of the other existing powers? Whats the point of the entire Constitution if they have what SCOTUS just gave them which, for now, is unlimited taxing authority for NOT buying a product?
Its not "free".
I think we can all agree that these days... "free" is a relative term.
This. And we have turned our backs on God who gets to administer the ultimate payback.
If the Lord is of all things good, he should not make me or those that I love suffer because some of my fellow men lust after a man's filthy ass or are otherwise sub-human narcissists. I hate the lumping in the bad with the good crap when discussing God, especially today.
I normally agree with 90% of what you say here, but you fell into the other 10% with this assessment. Still even if you're close to right, pretty sure you can reduce that number by 75% at this point.
I mean really, how many white voters does he have left, and most importantly how many of them would take the time to join an all white organization?
His white votes will this time come from gays, union members and the self-loathers generated by the liberal education system. The rest go Republican.
I'm stunned that you don't see the same thing in NJ that I see here.
We obviously need to send some NJ folks back home, because the vast majority of white people down here think it is "racist" to not support Obamacare.
The_War_Wagon
06-28-12, 17:00
Is Obamacare burnt toast?
No. The American Taxpayer NOW is. :mad:
UN****INGBELIEVABLE.
I have no words.
Well I do, you can call it "treachery!"
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 17:08
No. The American Taxpayer NOW is. :mad:
Yep. Looking at the washington post calculator a person who is single makes 15000 a year only has to pay a few hundred a year for insurance with a max of 6% out of pocket expenses per year.
For a single person insurance is still a few thousand a year (they only pay a few hundred the rest is tax dollars)...so all the money for these subsidies is going to be an EPIC amount of money. This is going to be hundreds of billions a year in subsidies, and that doesn't even include the cost of employer mandated insurance, mandatory levels of insurance, and insuring all the people out there now who have preexisting conditions. That number can never fully be quantified but will also be epic.
If you guys think people are going to vote in someone who is going to take away their $300 a year insurance you're nuts. Once that hook is set its going to be another segment of the population like old people who live off social security who will never vote for someone who is going to take their golden goose away. They'll just keep voting in people who will use 'the law' to keep the productive side of society slaving away paying their taxes which is directly spent on themselves.
Doc Safari
06-28-12, 17:15
Yep, Belmont, you got it. Ultimately our citizens bankrupt our country on the dole and we become Greece with riots in the streets.
But who bails the US out, Hmmmmm?
I may have to get stinking drunk tonight. This crap just gets scarier by the minute.
lifebreath
06-28-12, 17:15
Are there no limitations on this power? What if the government said everyone has to drive a Chevy Volt or face 25k a year in taxes? Is that legal?
Not for a Chevy, only a GM.
At this point, it is either time to completely boycott the Federal govt. and boycott paying taxes altogether or take to the streets like it's 1905.
This perpetual line stepping cannot go on much longer- until there is no line, no liberty and no fight left to be had. We are only hurting ourselves to go along with this charade any longer.
Realistic checks and balances are gone; a thing of the past; either we fight to get them back or we move forward as slaves to the new American regime.
Every dime you pay in taxes at this point is a dime that goes to further enslave yourself and your countrymen.
If you aren't infuriated to the point of extreme reaction at this point, I don't know what would wake you up and make you act...
And what the hell has happened to so many white people?
Well, last time I checked we are the minority group that has no minority "benefits". The sum of the black and Hispanic voters is greater than the sum of the white voters, hence we are like tits on a boar. Of the 3 groups we are also the stupidest of the lot. Not because we are unintelligent, but rather because we have absolutely no unity. The black community can come together on certain issues as can the Hispanic community. For various reasons, be those white guilt or general apathy, we are far easier to divide and conquer.
I think Roberts needs to learn that because it IS a "tax" it has to be overturned, because you cannot tax a negative.
And if Congress can pass any tax they want, why did we need the 16th amendment? (ignoring all the problems with the 16th amendment ratification process)
--
At this point, it is either time to completely boycott the Federal govt. and boycott paying taxes altogether or take to the streets like it's 1905.
This perpetual line stepping cannot go on much longer- until there is no line, no liberty and no fight left to be had. We are only hurting ourselves to go along with this charade any longer.
Realistic checks and balances are gone; a thing of the past; either we fight to get them back or we move forward as slaves to the new American regime.
Every dime you pay in taxes at this point is a dime that goes to further enslave yourself and your countrymen.
If you aren't infuriated to the point of extreme reaction at this point, I don't know what would wake you up and make you act...
This will never be reversed, ever! This will energize the left beyond our capacity to compete with it at the ballot box, every illegal Hispanic will be voting this November, and everyone knows this! It had, and has, absolutely nothing to do with health care. The reach & scope of this thing is breathtaking! We would be fools to think, or hope, that this gets overturned at the ballot box! Very honestly, this is why I stockpiled both weapons & ammunition, I have no intention of going softly into that dark night, I am not alone.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 17:45
Not sure how this will play out long term but one of the positives here is Roberts basically limited the Commerce clause but at the same time gave 'this' power to Congress under the taxing authority.....so the Commerce Clause is limited but taxing authority is not?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html
Just keep stockpiling. That is about the only thing we can do.
montanadave
06-28-12, 17:59
I think some of you may be missing the forest on account of the trees. Chief Justice Roberts crafted an opinion which, while upholding the ACA based largely on the constitutional authority of Congress to levy taxes, has concurrently placed some clear limits on what heretofore has been an exceedingly broad interpretation of the commerce clause. And by limiting the Medicaid expansion, this ruling has also bolstered state's rights advocates.
If Romney wins in the fall, which I think is even odds right now (and will only improve if the unemployment numbers continue to lag), the Republicans will likely regain the Senate as well. Through reconciliation, a simple Republican majority can still gut the ACA.
The left may be celebrating a victory in today's battle, but their euphoria might be short-lived. And there are some significant cases on the court's calender for next term for which the substance of today's ruling may bode ill.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe that Romney and a Republican majority in both houses will do anything about ObamaCare. Those statements are mere sound bites to get into office. Remember Romney did a very similar thing in Mas as governor and I don't think he has the balls to truly admit he was an idiot for doing so.
Even if he and the Reptards do gut ObamaCare and further rulings from the SC gut other stupid laws. There is still an SC ruling on the books that states the government can tax individuals for not doing what it wants. Not good for the long terms survival of this great nation as we know it.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe that Romney and a Republican majority in both houses will do anything about ObamaCare. Those statements are mere sound bites to get into office. Remember Romney did a very similar thing in Mas as governor and I don't think he has the balls to truly admit he was an idiot for doing so.
Even if he and the Reptards do gut ObamaCare and further rulings from the SC gut other stupid laws. There is still an SC ruling on the books that states the government can tax individuals for not doing what it wants. Not good for the long terms survival of this great nation as we know it.
Yep, no matter what Roberts has ****ed us for good.
The only thing that would make a difference is a population still willing to tar and feather somebody over an attack on their rights. But if we still had that kind of population we wouldn't be dealing with crap like Obamacare in the first place.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 18:17
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/
Once again Im not sure how this is a "win" when they can do the same thing under taxing authority as they argued they could under Commerce Clause. What the **** difference does it make if they still have the power. Obama lawyers basically threw every major power the government has at SCOTUS hoping one stuck, and they got one to via taxation. WTF difference does it make to me if Im compelled to buy something or face taxes if its authorized under the commerce clause or taxation?
montanadave
06-28-12, 18:31
Yep, no matter what Roberts has ****ed us for good.
The only thing that would make a difference is a population still willing to tar and feather somebody over an attack on their rights. But if we still had that kind of population we wouldn't be dealing with crap like Obamacare in the first place.
I think you're too quick in throwing Roberts under the bus. The guy's no dummy, he hasn't changed his ideological stripes, and he is likely to serve as Chief Justice for many moons.
The guy's playing long ball and I guarantee you he's not making it up as he goes.
I think some of you may be missing the forest on account of the trees. Chief Justice Roberts crafted an opinion which, while upholding the ACA based largely on the constitutional authority of Congress to levy taxes, has concurrently placed some clear limits on what heretofore has been an exceedingly broad interpretation of the commerce clause. And by limiting the Medicaid expansion, this ruling has also bolstered state's rights advocates.
If Romney wins in the fall, which I think is even odds right now (and will only improve if the unemployment numbers continue to lag), the Republicans will likely regain the Senate as well. Through reconciliation, a simple Republican majority can still gut the ACA.
The left may be celebrating a victory in today's battle, but their euphoria might be short-lived. And there are some significant cases on the court's calender for next term for which the substance of today's ruling may bode ill.
1) IF (and that is a very big ****ing IF) Romney wins and there happens to be a repub mjority; that POS won't do anything about Obamacare. Period.
2) who cares how the govt. Is allowed to "constitutionally" force us to comply with their will or be penalized in the form of taxation. It's now a precedent that will eviscerate what little soul this country has left.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees Dave-the bigger picture is ****ing dire and as scary/real/in your face as it could be.
This country is being hijacked right out from under us- and the slow usurpation has turned into an ever quickening storm. We're right in the middle of the shit here and now.
ForTehNguyen
06-28-12, 18:52
RIP Constitution
Very good analysis here. Youre going to facepalm at the exact details of why they upheld it.
The Supreme Court is wrong: ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk&feature=g-u-u)
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-12, 18:56
Just keep stockpiling. That is about the only thing we can do.
I thought about sending check to Romney. A big check. Instead I bought guns.
I think you're too quick in throwing Roberts under the bus. The guy's no dummy, he hasn't changed his ideological stripes, and he is likely to serve as Chief Justice for many moons.
The guy's playing long ball and I guarantee you he's not making it up as he goes.
The problem is that he sacrificed 1/8 of the economy for his Commerce clause win. A few more wins against the commerce clause and there won't be any commerce left for congress to grab.
The problem I have with Roberts strategy is that the liberals will have no problem disregarding this case and siding with expanded powers under another commerce clause test. Expecting Kagan or Ginsberg to actually follow the law is a fools errand. He could have just as easily sided with the minority- still struck it down under commerce clause and taken the pols at their word that it was not a tax. He re-wrote the law to make it constitutional - where is the separation of powers on that one.
I think we are on a multi-decade arc of continuing decline until the stink rises to high, the 'rich' have no more to give, and things get so bad that people say 'enough' and start to roll this stuff back. This is becoming a zero-sum-game country. I've got a seven year old son and a five year old daughter. We start vacation tomorrow and I'm going to have some sit downs with the boy while we are fishing to start to put into his head about the world and how you have to never back down bullies, take what you can- when you can -by any means necessary, and not show any quarter or weakness and with any restraints or quaint notions of fairness. We are in for some ugly times.
montanadave
06-28-12, 19:04
We start vacation tomorrow and I'm going to have some sit downs with the boy while we are fishing to start to put into his head about the world and how you have to never back down bullies, take what you can- when you can -by any means necessary, and not show any quarter or weakness and with any restraints or quaint notions of fairness. We are in for some ugly times.
Oh, for ****'s sake. Where'd you get that load of shit? The Visagoth's Guide to Parenting?
Don't forget The Golden Rule. :rolleyes:
I'm stunned that you don't see the same thing in NJ that I see here.
After talking with a seemingly sensible, 20-something male neighbor of mine today, I will be forced to retract my statement. He displays sound awareness of current events, yet even at this point he can't decide which candidate will make a better president. This because he acknowledges Obama is bad, yet Romney is too rich and out of touch.
Now you see, this is what the housing bubble has sown upon us. Not only did it cost me a six figure salary in land development, it has also destroyed faith in capitalism for an entire generation. Yet no one seems to know or care that the dems are the ones who pushed so hard for the lax lending criteria.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 20:04
After talking with a seemingly sensible, 20-something male neighbor of mine today, I will be forced to retract my statement. He displays sound awareness of current events, yet even at this point he can't decide which candidate will make a better president. This because he acknowledges Obama is bad, yet Romney is too rich and out of touch.
Now you see, this is what the housing bubble has sown upon us. Not only did it cost me a six figure salary in land development, it has also destroyed faith in capitalism for an entire generation. Yet no one seems to know or care that the dems are the ones who pushed so hard for the lax lending criteria.
Thats because republicans are playing recreational softball and dems are playing MLB playoffs. Dems control the message even as a minority. Boehner, and that GOP chairman Steele have twice boiled noodles for spines. Even Bush 2 as president took the high road and allowed the GOP to get beat up all over the place. Politics....I want someone representing me who isn't afraid to snatch the throat out of a dem and eat it on LIVE TV. Look at that ****ing failure McShitStain. "you have nothing to fear from Obama!". LMAO. So we get a nominee 4 years later even FURTHER LEFT than McShitStain.
I want the Marco Rubios, Ryans, Pauls, and some of the other guys like Gowdy in charge of the GOP instead of these noodle spined country club GOPers. Boehner? That dude might as well sit in the corner with a dunce cap for all the good he has done. His time on the floor during the Holder contempt vote was worthless. "Leader". That dude is an orange skinned PUSSY.
After talking with a seemingly sensible, 20-something male neighbor of mine today, I will be forced to retract my statement. He displays sound awareness of current events, yet even at this point he can't decide which candidate will make a better president. This because he acknowledges Obama is bad, yet Romney is too rich and out of touch.
The thing is lost, it will not be overturned at the ballot box, Roberts treachery has fired up the parasitic class like nothing else ever could have...I want to see the western states secede from the union, I am willing to fight on their behalf if they are so inclined....
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-12, 20:16
Oh, for ****'s sake. Where'd you get that load of shit? The Visagoth's Guide to Parenting?
Don't forget The Golden Rule. :rolleyes:
Those that have the gold make the rules.
Funny that you should mention the Visigoths. My boss has put out some really high plan numbers for the next five years so I went to the costume store and got a Viking helmet with horns and told him that it can be done, but we need to rape and pillage and I want more of the spoils.
GeorgiaBoy
06-28-12, 20:23
You know, I'll probably catch flak for this (like I do 99% of the time I attempt to post in the GD section), but I gotta say this: Despite my distaste in the bill, I find Justice Robert's decision a bit admirable.
Why? Because he voted how he, as a Supreme Court Justice, thought was the right. He didn't let pressures from the Republicans or conservatives in general influence him how to vote.
But anyway, so SCOTUS decided the Act was constitutional. Big deal. All it takes is a Republican majority congress and senate and president to repeal it. Its not the end of the world.
montanadave
06-28-12, 20:29
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/28/what_happened_to_john_roberts
I rarely listen to or read Limbaugh but thanks for posting that link.
It reaffirms my long-held assessment that the guy is an absolute ****ing maroon.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 20:32
You know, I'll probably catch flak for this (like I do 99% of the time I attempt to post in the GD section), but I gotta say this: Despite my distaste in the bill, I find Justice Robert's decision a bit admirable.
Why? Because he voted how he, as a Supreme Court Justice, thought was the right. He didn't let pressures from the Republicans or conservatives in general influence him how to vote.
But anyway, so SCOTUS decided the Act was constitutional. Big deal. All it takes is a Republican majority congress and senate and president to repeal it. Its not the end of the world.
No....turning what the two other branches said was a FINE into a TAX in the court isn't kosher. Another case of "the right" taking the high road, and ****ing over the country to make some point that will be forgotten in 30 minutes.
If you think Roberts made some historical point in his its a tax decision let me know how the now unlimited taxing authority works out in 10 years.
I just messaged my rep, and said I expect him to be the first to introduce legislation that says every 18-40 year old male must own an operable firearm for the collective defense of the US or face a few thousand dollar fine per year. Remember the libs say the 2nd amendment only applies to the national guard. How about a fine (oops I mean tax) on every 18-40 year old male who doesn't belong to the NG and doesn't have an operable long gun for the collective defense of the United States?
Too bad the "right" is too faggoty and limp wristed to turn this on the libs head. We gotta get McShitStain on another speech about how we have nothing to fear from Obama!
I thought about sending check to Romney. A big check. Instead I bought guns.
I haven't sent a dollar to any "conservative" movement since 2004 and I never plan to again.
I have spent all my extra cash on guns.
The thing is lost, it will not be overturned at the ballot box, Roberts treachery has fired up the parasitic class like nothing else ever could have...I want to see the western states secede from the union, I am willing to fight on their behalf if they are so inclined....
+1
The number of freeloaders has now outnumbered the number of producers in the US. We have reached and gone past a tipping point that cannot be undone.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 21:33
+1
The number of freeloaders has now outnumbered the number of producers in the US. We have reached and gone past a tipping point that cannot be undone.
Yep. Number of people who put food on the table due to government money is near 50% and all it takes is another 5% who don't put food on the table with government money but still vote with them to get the 50% +1 vote.
This battle was lost in the 60's and up into the 90's before I was even legal age to vote. Clinton wanted this type of law 15+ years ago.
I rarely listen to or read Limbaugh but thanks for posting that link.
It reaffirms my long-held assessment that the guy is an absolute ****ing maroon.
You're welcome. Glad I could be of service.
I've got a seven year old son and a five year old daughter. We start vacation tomorrow and I'm going to have some sit downs with the boy while we are fishing to start to put into his head about the world and how you have to never back down bullies, take what you can- when you can -by any means necessary, and not show any quarter or weakness and with any restraints or quaint notions of fairness.
As someone who also is raising a small child and who is as inflamed as well as disgusted as you, if not more, let me assure you that the above is an absolutely terrible idea. Rethink your position, your children can be strong leaders without becoming soulless takers in life.
You know, I'll probably catch flak for this (like I do 99% of the time I attempt to post in the GD section), but I gotta say this: Despite my distaste in the bill, I find Justice Robert's decision a bit admirable.
Why? Because he voted how he, as a Supreme Court Justice, thought was the right. He didn't let pressures from the Republicans or conservatives in general influence him how to vote.
But anyway, so SCOTUS decided the Act was constitutional. Big deal. All it takes is a Republican majority congress and senate and president to repeal it. Its not the end of the world.
Don't you think he acted a bit like a juror that can't deliver a guilty verdict because they didn't see a time stamped video of the murder?
He couldn't simply accept things at face value. He had to read a deeper meaning into it. One that was contrary to what the authors claimed it to be.
The glove didn't fit.... so he made it fit. That makes me feel like he has given in to some sort of pressure or personal desire.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 22:00
Don't you think he acted a bit like a juror that can't deliver a guilty verdict because they didn't see a time stamped video of the murder?
He couldn't simply accept things at face value. He had to read a deeper meaning into it. One that was contrary to what the authors claimed it to be.
The glove didn't fit.... so he made it fit. That makes me feel like he has given in to some sort of pressure or personal desire.
The gov did argue the tax angle but it was, at best, their 3rd string defense.
QuietShootr
06-28-12, 22:03
Tick tock.
GeorgiaBoy
06-28-12, 22:06
Don't you think he acted a bit like a juror that can't deliver a guilty verdict because they didn't see a time stamped video of the murder?
He couldn't simply accept things at face value. He had to read a deeper meaning into it. One that was contrary to what the authors claimed it to be.
The glove didn't fit.... so he made it fit. That makes me feel like he has given in to some sort of pressure or personal desire.
Its not so much that I agree with his decision, as much as I admire his ability to make it. He made it from a legal standpoint, not a political one. (Which is the main reason why it was split 5-4... the liberal justices voted for it, the conservatives voted against, except Roberts)
Politics says that the Affordable Care Act was socialist bill that isn't going to work. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make political decisions, it makes legal ones. Justice Roberts felt that, legally, there was nothing wrong with the bill. Do I agree with him? No. But at least he had a reason behind voting how he did, instead of the typical conservative mantra of "IT WILL TURN US SOCIALIST, IT WILL DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS, WE MUST MAKE OBAMA A FAILURE"
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 22:12
Its not so much that I agree with his decision, as much as I admire his ability to make it. He made it from a legal standpoint, not a political one. (Which is the main reason why it was split 5-4... the liberal justices voted for it, the conservatives voted against, except Roberts)
Politics says that the Affordable Care Act was socialist bill that isn't going to work. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make political decisions, it makes legal ones. Justice Roberts felt that, legally, there was nothing wrong with the bill. Do I agree with him? No. But at least he had a reason behind voting how he did, instead of the typical conservative mantra of "IT WILL TURN US SOCIALIST, IT WILL DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS, WE MUST MAKE OBAMA A FAILURE"
Thats not how the decision should have been. He could just as easily said its not constitutional to enact a tax for not buying a product based on the fact the tax is levied at every human being in the US. This is is not a consumption tax like gasoline or an income tax. This is a tax just for being a living soul within our borders for not buying a product the the government wants.
RancidSumo
06-28-12, 22:23
The government can't tax some huge amount for anything they want. Read the decision, Roberts cites a case in which a tax was turned into a penalty by the court (the reverse of this case) because it was excessive. I really feel that Roberts' opinion was well reasoned and well written. I don't think it is going to open this never ending stream of taxes that everyone seems so scared of.
I need to get on my laptop so I can type more easily as there is a lot I want to say about this.
Belmont31R
06-28-12, 22:28
The government can't tax some huge amount for anything they want. Read the decision, Roberts cites a case in which a tax was turned into a penalty by the court (the reverse of this case) because it was excessive. I really feel that Roberts' opinion was well reasoned and well written. I don't think it is going to open this never ending stream of taxes that everyone seems so scared of.
I need to get on my laptop so I can type more easily as there is a lot I want to say about this.
What limits were placed on taxes or penalties?
There are people out there paying millions of dollars in taxes while illegal aliens can get tax credits put right into their foreign bank account.
Its not so much that I agree with his decision, as much as I admire his ability to make it. He made it from a legal standpoint, not a political one. (Which is the main reason why it was split 5-4... the liberal justices voted for it, the conservatives voted against, except Roberts)
Politics says that the Affordable Care Act was socialist bill that isn't going to work. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make political decisions, it makes legal ones. Justice Roberts felt that, legally, there was nothing wrong with the bill. Do I agree with him? No. But at least he had a reason behind voting how he did, instead of the typical conservative mantra of "IT WILL TURN US SOCIALIST, IT WILL DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS, WE MUST MAKE OBAMA A FAILURE"
Well you are a socialst, whether you wish to be or not, you now live in a totalitartian socialist state, few taxpayers have any idea how deep, and intrusive this thing truly happens to be, it was crafted by Soviet styled socialists, to give the federal juggernaut absolute, total, control, of each citizen, from cradle to grave! Apparently, you have convinced yourself that its all just political hyperbole, God help you, its not!
Its horrifying, I fought against communist collectivism, and here I find myself, just two presidents after Reagan, and almost every American thirty and under, now thoroughly inculcated into the Soviet mindset, they are going to be getting exactly what they deserve, they are completely clueless as to what is coming for them, and almost certainly, totally defenseless...
ForTehNguyen
06-28-12, 22:46
new theory. Since SCOTUS declared this as a tax instead of a penalty. Note the Constitution says all tax bills must originate in the House. Remember House passed its version, then the Senate passed its version, but instead of the Senate version going to the House and risking another vote they passed the Senate version on reconciliation. So considering this, one can argue it wasn't lawfully passed since all tax bills have to originate in the House.
http://www.fox19.com/story/18910419/reality-check-if-affordable-care-act-is-a-tax-is-law-invalid
VooDoo6Actual
06-28-12, 23:05
Well you are a socialst, whether you wish to be or not, you now live in a totalitartian socialist state, few taxpayers have any idea how deep, and intrusive this thing truly happens to be, it was crafted by Soviet styled socialists, to give the federal juggernaut absolute, total, control, of each citizen, from cradle to grave! Apparently, you have convinced yourself that its all just political hyperbole, God help you, its not!
Its horrifying, I fought against communist collectivism, and here I find myself, just two presidents after Reagan, and almost every American thirty and under, now thoroughly inculcated into the Soviet mindset, they are going to be getting exactly what they deserve, they are completely clueless as to what is coming for them, and almost certainly, totally defenseless...
Spot on post
Deus Vult
I have always felt that the biggest flaw in the original design of the Constitution was the concept of having judges serve for live. I understand their reasoning but in practice it has hurt the Constitution FAR more than it has helped it.
I would LOVE to see an Amendment making Supreme Court Justices elected positions. Maybe 7 or 9 year terms so they are off the regular election cycle.
Jefferson saw the error almost immediately:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
While they are at it, I would also like to see the 17th Amendment repealed with Senators being appointed by the States as originally intended. We wouldn't even have Obama Care if this was the case.
1. Fiscally in regards to healthcare, PPACA makes no significant difference. The future governmental obligations under various parts of Medicare and social programs before PPACA are estimated at 60 trillion. PPACA will increase the health care costs and expedite the bankruptcy by few years, but conceptually it is not changing the direction of ever increasing costs of healthcare. Republicans didn't do anything about it as if everything was great before Obamacare, they want to repeal it, but the practical difference is slower slide vs faster slide.
As far as this part is concerned, if the government is going to get bankrupt - and it will with PPACA, just as it would've without it - I'd rather to weather the storm while I am younger and have time to fix the consequences for family than having to face this later.
2. I am not a constitutional scholar and not a tax attorney, so I'd defer to more intelligent ones to say if this is a fine or tax and whether it is constitutional. The fact is that everybody, every single person in this country, knows that Obamacare was allowed to stand because SCOTUS said that attendant penalty was a tax. Another fact is that populistic stance of current administration that middle and lower earners will not see tax increases is now nonviable. If Reps have at least half of the brain, the current administration should be defending itself from today till November on account of raising taxes in such difficult times. Come November 6 2012, the electorate will have yet another chance to say what they want - "universal" coverage with higher "taxes" or return to the old ways. The difference between 2008 when they voted for "change and hope" and now is that now they know who's going to pay for change. Am I the only one who thinks this may have the same effect on elections as the ban did in 1994?
Raven Armament
06-29-12, 01:15
Yep. Looking at the washington post calculator a person who is single makes 15000 a year only has to pay a few hundred a year for insurance with a max of 6% out of pocket expenses per year.
Do you have a link to this, please? I googled the crap out of the internet before work and couldn't find the calculator.
. I am not a constitutional scholar and not a tax attorney, so I'd defer to more intelligent ones to say if this is a fine or tax and whether it is constitutional. The fact is that everybody, every single person in this country, knows that Obamacare was allowed to stand because SCOTUS said that attendant penalty was a tax. Another fact is that populistic stance of current administration that middle and lower earners will not see tax increases is now nonviable. If Reps have at least half of the brain, the current administration should be defending itself from today till November on account of raising taxes in such difficult times. Come November 6 2012, the electorate will have yet another chance to say what they want - "universal" coverage with higher "taxes" or return to the old ways. The difference between 2008 when they voted for "change and hope" and now is that now they know who's going to pay for change. Am I the only one who thinks this may have the same effect on elections as the ban did in 1994?
The democratic machine has ensured that this will never be reversed via the ballot box, this is one of the primary reasons for their many treasons on behalf of illegal alien Hispanics, along with their steadfast refusal to secure the southern border, and why they have never failed at obstructing every enforcement mechanism associated with them! Now, under "Obamalaw," these illegals have equal access to the system, actually, even better in some respects then we so-called citizens will have! There is not just twelve million of them, the true figure is well north of thirty million, and they will be voting, just as the democrats have always intended they will.
Do you understand? We have no enforcement mechanisms in place for keeping those illegal invaders from voting, while you and I, must submit to a background check to exercise our 2nd Amendment privileges, anybody can just show up and vote, and they will be voting, just as all of the supercharged marxist inculcated under thirties will now be doing, thanks to the treachery of Roberts. Its my opinion that we will lose at the ballot box in November, regardless of how large of a turnout we generate....This was checkmate...
BTW, I expect a huge run on guns, and ammunition, there are more than a few hidden gun control measures contained within Obamacare, totalitarian socialists have no tolerance for the subjects having unfettered access to firearms, I believe that the states new socialist doctors, will be very busy charting about their patients mental health challenges.
Moose-Knuckle
06-29-12, 04:09
He made it from a legal standpoint, not a political one. (Which is the main reason why it was split 5-4... the liberal justices voted for it, the conservatives voted against, except Roberts)
Which is EXACTLY why he should have voted against it. That is why he (specifically) was appointed! :blink:
I surmise you would be singing a different tune had this been new gun control measures?
Its horrifying, I fought against communist collectivism, and here I find myself, just two presidents after Reagan, and almost every American thirty and under, now thoroughly inculcated into the Soviet mindset, they are going to be getting exactly what they deserve, they are completely clueless as to what is coming for them, and almost certainly, totally defenseless...
As I have said numerous times in the last few years, I am really glad I am in my late 60's and not my 20's or 30's. I have had a good life, but would struggle mightily under what is coming.
davidjinks
06-29-12, 06:42
Can someone please cite the part of the Constitution where it says:
The government has the right to tax an American citizen if they DON'T buy something.
Furthermore, for those of you agreeing with Roberts:
WTF are you smoking?!?! It's in the record that HE himself changed what the bill said. I.E. it went from not being a tax to being a tax.
How can someone be taxed for NOT buying something?
I caught a few blurbs on the news this morning on the way out the door that people are already being notified they will have their health care insurance cut. They are being informed they will have to secure their own policies. I have not researched what has been said but it has been reported.
It is my understanding that the cost of the health care will be 1% of your income. Supposedly there are provisions in the bill that state that figure is NOT fixed.
On a side note, Pelosi was interviewed yesterday. During the interview she began gloating. "Wait until you see what's coming with the passing of this bill". Again, I have not personally verified this but several radio stations and the TV news has stated this.
So basically it comes down to:
Buy health care insurance or face a tax.
Can't afford it, too bad, pay the tax.
Can't afford that, too bad, wages garnished (IRS).
Can't afford that, too bad, we're putting a lean on...
I hope the douchebags that voted for Obama and supported this new health care act realize what you all have just done.
I give it a year (Maybe less) when we start seeing unemployment hitting 20%, health insurance becomes so expensive no one will be able to afford it, markets drop to below depression numbers, physicians unions being created, health care choked off to ALL people.
crusader377
06-29-12, 07:46
I have always felt that the biggest flaw in the original design of the Constitution was the concept of having judges serve for live. I understand their reasoning but in practice it has hurt the Constitution FAR more than it has helped it.
I would LOVE to see an Amendment making Supreme Court Justices elected positions. Maybe 7 or 9 year terms so they are off the regular election cycle.
Jefferson saw the error almost immediately:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
While they are at it, I would also like to see the 17th Amendment repealed with Senators being appointed by the States as originally intended. We wouldn't even have Obama Care if this was the case.
I think something else that the founders never expected was the long life expectacy of people today. When the Constitution was written an average justice might have only served 5-10 years on the court before he passed away. Now days, It is extremely likely that a justice appointed to the bench in his or her 50s will have a 30+ yr career in the court. Therefore, court appointments are a extremely powerful tool that the executive branch has and can influence legislation and policy for a generation. I think the Supreme Court should have only one fixed term of 10 years.
Which is EXACTLY why he should have voted against it. That is why he (specifically) was appointed! :blink:
I surmise you would be singing a different tune had this been new gun control measures?
I wouldn't. If we're expecting the libs to play by the rules, then we shouldn't get huffy when they do and it doesn't go our way. Face it, we got outlawyered. They did a legal bait and switch. They said it wasn't a tax, but they wrote it as one. It doesn't matter if it was described as a penalty or a fine, so long as it's implementation was identical to a tax. It's implementation is by the ****ing IRS for Christ's sake!
For those saying it isn't Constitutional for them to collect a tax on something that isn't purchased, show me where it says thay have the authority to tax on something specifically because it is purchased? They just created a whole new class of taxation and they did it while pissing down the GOP's leg! They've been saying for years that they wanted to raise taxes and the GOP has resisted. Well the GOP just got punked.
Roberts is literally thumping the entire country on the nose with it. He's saying "Hey dumbasses! You voted for these ****ers, so you got what you deserved!" To the GOP he's saying "Wow! You mental midgets look really stupid right now! You got your ass kicked procedurally and now you look like fools! Are you gonna stand there and bleed, or are you gonna do something about it?"
The GOP has been going down the wrong path for decades. Now they've pinned their hopes on the boat anchor that is Romney. The very guy who's pet health care mandate Obamacare was modeled after. If the consequences weren't so dire, I'd be rolling on the ground laughing and pointing at them. Who the **** is leading these pinheads! :confused:
For those saying it isn't Constitutional for them to collect a tax on something that isn't purchased, show me where it says thay have the authority to tax on something specifically because it is purchased? They just created a whole new class of taxation and they did it while pissing down the GOP's leg! They've been saying for years that they wanted to raise taxes and the GOP has resisted. Well the GOP just got punked.
Roberts is literally thumping the entire country on the nose with it. He's saying "Hey dumbasses! You voted for these ****ers, so you got what you deserved!" To the GOP he's saying "Wow! You mental midgets look really stupid right now! You got your ass kicked procedurally and now you look like fools! Are you gonna stand there and bleed, or are you gonna do something about it?"
The problem with your logic is that the ObamaCare cannot be considered a Constitutional tax due to the provisions of Article 1, Section 7 that states:
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"
The Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, and therefore cannot be a tax. It is simply implausible that a jurist of Roberts caliber did not understand this when he wrote the majority decision. Thus, he simply decided to rewrite the law (or, perhaps rewrite the constitution) with his majority decision. This draws into question whether States should ignore legislation AND SCOTUS decisions that are flagrant violations of the Nation's laws.
Doc Safari
06-29-12, 09:17
I believe this may have been mentioned before either here or in another thread, but the real danger of this court decision is that it now gives the Congress the power to make you do anything it wants to by way of a tax.
Don't want to give up your assault weapons? There will be a tax.
Don't want to allow your congregation to have contraceptives? There will be a tax.
Don't want to trade in your SUV for a Volt? There will be a tax.
Don't want to give up McDonald's hamburgers? There will be a tax.
We are all in the deepest kimchee you can imagine and we don't even know it yet.
The democratic machine has ensured that this will never be reversed via the ballot box
.
Look up "2010 mid-term elections". No amount of illegal voters and whatever machine Democrats have in place prevented 63 seat gain by Republicans. If electorate en mass wants to have this repealed - the electorate has means to it.
Belmont31R
06-29-12, 09:37
I wouldn't. If we're expecting the libs to play by the rules, then we shouldn't get huffy when they do and it doesn't go our way. Face it, we got outlawyered. They did a legal bait and switch. They said it wasn't a tax, but they wrote it as one. It doesn't matter if it was described as a penalty or a fine, so long as it's implementation was identical to a tax. It's implementation is by the ****ing IRS for Christ's sake!
For those saying it isn't Constitutional for them to collect a tax on something that isn't purchased, show me where it says thay have the authority to tax on something specifically because it is purchased? They just created a whole new class of taxation and they did it while pissing down the GOP's leg! They've been saying for years that they wanted to raise taxes and the GOP has resisted. Well the GOP just got punked.
Roberts is literally thumping the entire country on the nose with it. He's saying "Hey dumbasses! You voted for these ****ers, so you got what you deserved!" To the GOP he's saying "Wow! You mental midgets look really stupid right now! You got your ass kicked procedurally and now you look like fools! Are you gonna stand there and bleed, or are you gonna do something about it?"
The GOP has been going down the wrong path for decades. Now they've pinned their hopes on the boat anchor that is Romney. The very guy who's pet health care mandate Obamacare was modeled after. If the consequences weren't so dire, I'd be rolling on the ground laughing and pointing at them. Who the **** is leading these pinheads! :confused:
Obviously the government has the power to tax. He could have called it a tax and simply said your taxing authority doesn't extend to taxing someone for NOT buying something.
Now that the government can tax you for not doing something, just for being a human being, they have unlimited power to coerce and force people to do whatever they want.
ETA: But yes I generally agree with your post. Republicans have been mind numbing stupid how they have handled themselves in the past 10 years, and show ZERO signs of improving anything. Sure they didn't vote for THIS law but they want many of the same things. When the trillion dollar stimulus was passed republicans proposed a stimilus that was still around 500 billion dollars. When they had control of Congress and the executive they did NOTHING to improve our long term financial viability, reduce the debt, or reduce the size of government. While they are not as bad as democrats they are still bad for this country. They have done a lot of things to help democrats get to where they are today, and very little to actually turn the country around.
lifebreath
06-29-12, 10:11
Jefferson saw the error almost immediately:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Great quote. Here's a good elaboration from http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.html
Judicial Tyranny Was Foreseen
by Thomas Jefferson
In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny
Early in his career Jefferson was concerned for the independence of the judiciary in order that it be strong and to prevent injustice. However, when the federalists focused their efforts on the transfer to Washington of the power reserved in the Constitution to the States, using the power that they had obtained in the judiciary, he began to view with alarm the subversion of the judiciary and its independence of the nation. To the prevention of their objective Jefferson devoted the rest of his life. The following quotations may be found in Jefferson: Magnificent Populist, by Martin Larson, pp 136-142
Judicial tyranny was the subject of many of his letters ...
BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. — Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804
He said judicial tyranny made the Constitution "a thing of wax."
If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819
Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny.
This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823
He saw where judicial tyranny was leading.
When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. — Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821
He saw judicial tyranny as a subtle undermining of the Constitution.
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820
Jefferson saw judicial tyranny as an all-out assault on the Constitution.
I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821
He saw judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.
… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823
For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.
… One single object ... will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825
The problem with your logic is that the ObamaCare cannot be considered a Constitutional tax due to the provisions of Article 1, Section 7 that states:
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"
The Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, and therefore cannot be a tax. It is simply implausible that a jurist of Roberts caliber did not understand this when he wrote the majority decision. Thus, he simply decided to rewrite the law (or, perhaps rewrite the constitution) with his majority decision. This draws into question whether States should ignore legislation AND SCOTUS decisions that are flagrant violations of the Nation's laws.
Which IMO, means the House abdicated their constitutional responsibility and handed it over to the Senate. Who did this? Well Queen Nancy did of course! Why do you think she said "We have to pass it to see what's in it"? Speaker Boehner now needs to commit to proceedings that nullify the law, AND proceedings to hold Queen Nancy accountable for her perfidy!
Raven Armament
06-29-12, 10:39
So considering this, one can argue it wasn't lawfully passed since all tax bills have to originate in the House.
Well, the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. We're stuck with that. The Hughes Amendment wasn't legally passed to attach to the FOPA, but good ol' Charlie recorded the vote as a passage, now we're stuck with that. Why would this be any different?
Look up "2010 mid-term elections". No amount of illegal voters and whatever machine Democrats have in place prevented 63 seat gain by Republicans. If electorate en mass wants to have this repelled - the electorate has means to it.
Do you really believe the "republicans" of today are going to do anything about Obamacare?
Seriously?
The majority of todays "republicans" voted in favor of such things as:
-Patriot Act
-Homeland Security Act
-National Defense Act of America
-FAA ACT/30,000 drones to be in the sky (thats 600 drones per state, FYI!)
-Indefinite detention on US soil (Only 19 "Repubs" voted against this dickhead bill)
The Repubs and Dems are the same thing at this point- and they don't represent the citizens of this country, they represent special interest groups, the UN, their own power grabbing agendas and most of all keeping the common citizen arguing across perceived political lines so they are too busy fighting their brothers to notice the encroachmment of liberty.
I hope your faith in the GOP shows itself in the form of a return to sanity and nullification/repeal of PACA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, FAA Act, NDAA, DEA, BATFE, EPA, etc, etc etc... I;'m not holding my breath.
Until we hold these cocksuckers accountable for stealing our liberty- I doubt very much anything will change; they have no reason to stop if we don't give them one. Seriously/logically think about it.
This precedent stinks to high hell, it is a pile of steaming turd and this administration and the sheep that follow them is waiving it in our faces. Essentially saying: "You have to comply with our will, be it unconstitutional or not, we are entitled to your earnings, deal with it and **** off".
Justice Roberts is a scum bag.; he was bought off, paid for and purchased to fullfill this agenda- it couldn't be much clearer, IMO.
Our constitution is just a nicely preserved piece of hemp at this point. 2A will be the next one to get trampled further/completely. Just watch- don't comply with the UN small arms treaty-TAX! Cap on how many guns/how much ammo you can buy in a given period; if you go above and beyond-TAX!
The train wreck is coming unless we act to stop it.
What a depressing and infuriating time to be a free/productive man. :suicide2:
Belmont31R
06-29-12, 10:58
Stay classy Obama....
https://store.barackobama.com/obamacare/obama-health-reform-is-still-a-bfd-tee.html?source=socnet_20120628_BO_TW_BFD_MERCH&utm_medium=tw&utm_source=bo_tw&utm_campaign=socnet_20120628_BO_TW_BFD_MERCH
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/statuses/218527805934280705
Belmont31R
06-29-12, 11:16
Do you really believe the "republicans" of today are going to do anything about Obamacare?
Seriously?
The majority of todays "republicans" voted in favor of such things as:
-Patriot Act
-Homeland Security Act
-National Defense Act of America
-FAA ACT/30,000 drones to be in the sky (thats 600 drones per state, FYI!)
-Indefinite detention on US soil (Only 19 "Repubs" voted against this dickhead bill)
The Repubs and Dems are the same thing at this point- and they don't represent the citizens of this country, they represent special interest groups, the UN, their own power grabbing agendas and most of all keeping the common citizen arguing across perceived political lines so they are too busy fighting their brothers to notice the encroachmment of liberty.
I hope your faith in the GOP shows itself in the form of a return to sanity and nullification/repeal of PACA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, FAA Act, NDAA, DEA, BATFE, EPA, etc, etc etc... I;'m not holding my breath.
Until we hold these cocksuckers accountable for stealing our liberty- I doubt very much anything will change; they have no reason to stop if we don't give them one. Seriously/logically think about it.
This precedent stinks to high hell, it is a pile of steaming turd and this administration and the sheep that follow them is waiving it in our faces. Essentially saying: "You have to comply with our will, be it unconstitutional or not, we are entitled to your earnings, deal with it and **** off".
Justice Roberts is a scum bag.; he was bought off, paid for and purchased to fullfill this agenda- it couldn't be much clearer, IMO.
Our constitution is just a nicely preserved piece of hemp at this point. 2A will be the next one to get trampled further/completely. Just watch- don't comply with the UN small arms treaty-TAX! Cap on how many guns/how much ammo you can buy in a given period; if you go above and beyond-TAX!
The train wreck is coming unless we act to stop it.
What a depressing and infuriating time to be a free/productive man. :suicide2:
Exactly. We got the House back, and all they are doing is working with the democrat senate to keep passing their big government "security" bills they love so much.
Doc Safari
06-29-12, 11:21
Honestly, guys, I've gotten to the point that I think the only hope is for the money to run out and the government comes apart like the old Soviet government.
Honestly, guys, I've gotten to the point that I think the only hope is for the money to run out and the government comes apart like the old Soviet government.
Well, with this, and the approaching "Fiscal Cliff" there's a real good chance that could happen..you can't keep making money out of thin air forever. Sooner or later, the bill WILL come due...and with over 15T in debt and climbing, The U.S. will have no choice but to default...It's just a matter of time.
Now that the government can tax you ...just for being a human being...
As a tax it's clearly capitation (tax per person).
That makes it a direct tax.
Article 1 Section 2
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States...
RancidSumo
06-29-12, 12:07
The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.
-John Marshall
Roberts included that quote in the ruling and I think that a lot of you would be wise to listen to it.
Roberts did not rewrite the law, he took a favorable reading of it that would let the law stand on constitutional grounds. That is what the SCOTUS is required to do,
And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148
(1927) (concurring opinion).
He explains why it resembles a tax,
The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those
without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not
pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to
pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion
per year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation, 2009–2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010).
Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the socalled tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-Injunction Act; Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress
therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congress’s choice of label.
We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax. In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets—for which the licensee had to pay a fee—could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power. 5 Wall., at 471. And in New York v. United States we upheld as a tax a “surcharge” on out-of state nuclear waste shipments, a portion of which was paid to the Federal Treasury. 505 U. S., at 171. We thus ask whether the shared responsibility payment falls within Congress’s taxing power, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935); cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310
(1992) (“[M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) (“In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words
which may be applied to it” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978) (“That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty’ does not alter their essential character as taxes”). (Emphasis mine)
He gives an example of the court ruling that a tax was actually a penalty,
Our cases confirm this functional approach. For example, in Drexel Furniture, we focused on three practical characteristics of the so-called tax on employing child laborers that convinced us the “tax” was actually a penalty. First, the tax imposed an exceedingly heavy burden—10 percent of a company’s net income—on those who
employed children, no matter how small their infraction. Second, it imposed that exaction only on those who knowingly employed underage laborers. Such scienter requirements are typical of punitive statutes, because Congress often wishes to punish only those who intentionally break the law. Third, this “tax” was enforced in part by the Department of Labor, an agency responsible for punishing violations of labor laws, not collecting revenue. 259 U. S., at 36–37; see also, e.g., Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 780–782 (considering, inter alia, the amount of the exaction, and the fact that it was imposed for violation of a separate criminal law); Constantine, supra, at 295 (same).
The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment
rather than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37. Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution.
See §5000A(g)(2). The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a “tax” there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a “penalty” here may be viewed as a tax.
In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has
explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything, it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) (“[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act”). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health
insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60–61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–50 (Mar. 26,
2012).
And now the part everyone is so worried about,
There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.
Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes. See Letter from Benjamin Franklin to M. Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789) (“Our new Constitution is now established . . . but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”).
Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress’s
use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does
not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.
Second, Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra,
at 38).
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive
that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)).
Third, although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full
weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.
By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated
by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. (emphasis again mine)
Roberts is no idiot and I would bet anything that he knows more about the constitution than everyone on this forum. His argument is well reasoned and well written as I said earlier. To think he was bought or something similar is, quite frankly, retarded.
I don't like how things turned out and I certainly don't like the law but that does not make it unconstitutional. It is not the job of the Court to strike down stupid laws, just unconstitutional ones and this one ended up being constitutional. Bitch all you want but it wasn't Roberts who screwed us over, it was the people we elected to represent us.
(Wouldn't it have been easier to just read the damn opinion for yourselves to get all of this? You wouldn't have had to deal with the formatting issues and you would have read even more information. Here is the link to the actual text as I still think that even though I just did 90% of the work for you, you should go read it- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
Look up "2010 mid-term elections". No amount of illegal voters and whatever machine Democrats have in place prevented 63 seat gain by Republicans. If electorate en mass wants to have this repealed - the electorate has means to it.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1790/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-hispanic-vote
Read em and weep....The numbers are irrefutable, further, the 2010 leftist turnout was widely known to have been depressed, a consequence of the many blunders associated with the ramming of healthcare down our throats, and the presumption amongst the leftist base that "Obama" wasn't "left" enough! Do you not recall the prevailing mood? Every swinging dick with a law degree was predicting a slamdunk SCOTUS "bitch slap down" of Obamacare.
You can be assured that in 2012, the turnout will be staggeringly enormnous for the national democratic socialist party, Roberts treachery has assured it....He has energized them beyond anything that Obama, and the leadership of the NDSP could ever have hoped to do...You must understand, those illegals, they are going to be voting, this is assured, this provides the NDSP with a fresh 10-20 million voters...This doesn't get turned over at the ballot box, at the least, the outlook is very grim.
Why the Republicans took back the House:
The Democratic Base Stayed Home
Core Democratic groups stayed away in droves Tuesday, costing Democratic House candidates dearly at the polls.
Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people were among the many core Democratic groups that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 elections, propelling Mr. Obama and Democratic House candidates to sizable victories. In 2010, turnout among these groups dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels.
Voters under the age of 30 comprised 18 percent of the electorate in 2008 and nearly 13 percent in 2006 but only made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2010. The share of voters from union households dropped from 23 percent in 2006 and 21 percent in 2008 to 17 percent in 2010. African Americans made up 13 percent of the electorate in 2008 but fell to 10 percent in 2010. Such apathy likely cost the Democrats House seats as voters in each of these groups cast ballots for Democratic House candidates by at least 15 point margins.
Do you think that after being handed this unlooked for jewel by a treacherous John Roberts, they will do anything but flood the polls in 2012?
-John Marshall
Roberts included that quote in the ruling and I think that a lot of you would be wise to listen to it.
Roberts did not rewrite the law, he took a favorable reading of it that would let the law stand on constitutional grounds. That is what the SCOTUS is required to do,
He explains why it resembles a tax,
(Emphasis mine)
He gives an example of the court ruling that a tax was actually a penalty,
And now the part everyone is so worried about,
(emphasis again mine)
Roberts is no idiot and I would bet anything that he knows more about the constitution than everyone on this forum. His argument is well reasoned and well written as I said earlier. To think he was bought or something similar is, quite frankly, retarded.
I don't like how things turned out and I certainly don't like the law but that does not make it unconstitutional. It is not the job of the Court to strike down stupid laws, just unconstitutional ones and this one ended up being constitutional. Bitch all you want but it wasn't Roberts who screwed us over, it was the people we elected to represent us.
(Wouldn't it have been easier to just read the damn opinion for yourselves to get all of this? You wouldn't have had to deal with the formatting issues and you would have read even more information. Here is the link to the actual text as I still think that even though I just did 90% of the work for you, you should go read it- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
Here is an excerpt from Scali & Co's dissent:
In answering that question we must, if “fairly possible,” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. “‘“[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . . ” or judicially rewriting it.’” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 841 (1986) (quoting Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515 (1964), in turn quoting Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 211 (1961)). In this case, there is simply no way, “without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used,” Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 269 (1884), to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty.
The Government and those who support its view on the tax point rely on New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, to justify reading “shall” to mean “may.” The “shall” in that case was contained in an introductory provision — a recital that provided for no legal consequences — which said that “[e]ach State shall be responsible for providing . . . for the disposal of . . . low-level radioactive waste.” 42 U. S. C. §2021c(a)(1)(A). The Court did not hold that “shall” could be construed to mean “may,” but rather that this preliminary provision could not impose upon the operative provisions of the Act a mandate that they did not contain: “We . . . decline petitioners’ invitation to construe §2021c(a)(1)(A), alone and in isolation, as a command to the States independent of the remainder of the Act.” New York, 505 U. S., at 170. Our opinion then proceeded to “consider each [of the three operative provisions] in turn.” Ibid. Here the mandate — the “shall” — is contained not in an inoperative preliminary recital, but in the dispositive operative provision itself. New York provides no support for reading it to be permissive.
Quite separately, the fact that Congress (in its own words) “imposed . . . a penalty,” 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b)(1),for failure to buy insurance is alone sufficient to render that failure unlawful. It is one of the canons of interpretation that a statute that penalizes an act makes it unlawful: “[W]here the statute inflicts a penalty for doing an act, although the act itself is not expressly prohibited, yet to do the act is unlawful, because it cannot be supposed that the Legislature intended that a penalty should be inflicted for a lawful act.” Powhatan Steamboat Co. v. Appomattox R. Co., 24 How. 247, 252 (1861). Or in the words of Chancellor Kent: “If a statute inflicts a penalty for doing an act, the penalty implies a prohibition, and the thing is unlawful, though there be no prohibitory words in the statute.” 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 436 (1826).
We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty. To be sure, we have sometimes treated as a tax a statutory exaction (imposed for something other than a violation of law) which bore an agnostic label that does not entail the significant constitutional consequences of a penalty — such as “license” (License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462 (1867)) or “surcharge” (New York v. United States, supra.). But we have never — never — treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a “penalty.” Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in§5000A(b) a “penalty.”
That §5000A imposes not a simple tax but a mandate to which a penalty is attached is demonstrated by the fact that some are exempt from the tax who are not exempt from the mandate — a distinction that would make no sense if the mandate were not a mandate.
-End quotes from Scalia & Co's Dissent-
In a few prior cases, the Supreme Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private activity was so onerous as to constitute a penalty. Americans who do not purchase health insurance will be fined up to $1900 per year. If that is not an onerous “tax,” I don’t know what is. The penalty for noncompliance is up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.
I'm just not tracking with your/Roberts logic Rancid. I just can't call a penalty for failing to follow orders a "tax".
In no way shape or form is this a "tax"- IT IS A PENALTY FOR NON COMPLIANCE; it was directly written that way and Roberts assertion that it is a tax is flat out wrong. The individual mandate as it stands is unconstitutional.
The "tax" is onerous and therefore a "penalty" by default.
Roberts was not actually ceding power to Congress, but amassing more power for the Court, reminiscent of the power play by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raven Armament
06-29-12, 13:32
Interesting read on Roberts' decision.
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/
Oops! Same content different source.
Belmont31R
06-29-12, 13:53
WhiteHouse is still calling it a penalty: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
exactly and sadly they crafted it that way so it would get through as a tax ! some are saying ?
if they presented it as such it would not have passed the American public but they knew how to get around it !
I believe this may have been mentioned before either here or in another thread, but the real danger of this court decision is that it now gives the Congress the power to make you do anything it wants to by way of a tax.
Don't want to give up your assault weapons? There will be a tax.
Don't want to allow your congregation to have contraceptives? There will be a tax.
Don't want to trade in your SUV for a Volt? There will be a tax.
Don't want to give up McDonald's hamburgers? There will be a tax.
We are all in the deepest kimchee you can imagine and we don't even know it yet.
WhiteHouse is still calling it a penalty: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
He can call it whatever he wants. It's been adjudicated in the highest court in the land as a tax, so it's a tax, period!
CJ Roberts just handed the GOP exactly what they needed to thump Obama badly. Unfortunately, it's the equivalent of handing Barney Fife an M-60. :(
Interesting read on Roberts' decision.
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/
“This decision I would go as far to say is lawless. Absolutely lawless!” 'Mark Levin'
Another interesting take on it...
He can call it whatever he wants. It's been adjudicated in the highest court in the land as a tax, so it's a tax, period!
CJ Roberts just handed the GOP exactly what they needed to thump Obama badly. Unfortunately, it's the equivalent of handing Barney Fife an M-60. :(
Sad but true. Wanna see what the polls will look like in November?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XztrTGXl29U
But Barney will be there with his bullet in his shirt pocket.
GeorgiaBoy
06-29-12, 14:37
Justice Roberts is a scum bag.; he was bought off, paid for and purchased to fullfill this agenda- it couldn't be much clearer, IMO.
That's extremely far fetched.
For one, being a Supreme Court justice isn't like being a congressman or Senator. You are there for LIFE. You will most likely die on the bench, or retire right before it. There is so much prestige and honor in being a supreme court justice, being one of those 9 on the bench that judge all of the major cases in this country. They would never risk their reputation being ruined, and possible impeachment, for taking bribes.
No one can "boss" around a Justice on the court. SCOTUS is the most powerful branch by far right now (not a good thing), and I sincerely doubt it will take bribes for their decisions. A justice will be on the court for a lot longer than a corrupt president and his followers.
I think something else that the founders never expected was the long life expectacy of people today. When the Constitution was written an average justice might have only served 5-10 years on the court before he passed away. Now days, It is extremely likely that a justice appointed to the bench in his or her 50s will have a 30+ yr career in the court. Therefore, court appointments are a extremely powerful tool that the executive branch has and can influence legislation and policy for a generation. I think the Supreme Court should have only one fixed term of 10 years.
I don't think so. John Marshall was the 4th Chief Justice and served longer than anyone in history; from 1801 to 1835. Taney served for 28 years
The problem with your logic is that the ObamaCare cannot be considered a Constitutional tax due to the provisions of Article 1, Section 7 that states:
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"
The Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, and therefore cannot be a tax. It is simply implausible that a jurist of Roberts caliber did not understand this when he wrote the majority decision. Thus, he simply decided to rewrite the law (or, perhaps rewrite the constitution) with his majority decision. This draws into question whether States should ignore legislation AND SCOTUS decisions that are flagrant violations of the Nation's laws.
I wish someone would move to have the bill nullified on these grounds.
Honestly, guys, I've gotten to the point that I think the only hope is for the money to run out and the government comes apart like the old Soviet government.
Before they get there, they will help themselves to all of yours.
That's extremely far fetched.
For one, being a Supreme Court justice isn't like being a congressman or Senator. You are there for LIFE. You will most likely die on the bench, or retire right before it. There is so much prestige and honor in being a supreme court justice, being one of those 9 on the bench that judge all of the major cases in this country. They would never risk their reputation being ruined, and possible impeachment, for taking bribes.
No one can "boss" around a Justice on the court. SCOTUS is the most powerful branch by far right now (not a good thing), and I sincerely doubt it will take bribes for their decisions. A justice will be on the court for a lot longer than a corrupt president and his followers.
I think that your conclusion is naive, even though the idea that he was bribed IS far fetched. Roberts literally re-wrote the governments case for them, and then slammed it down our throats!
No, Roberts wasn't bribed, but I sure am curious as to what his vices happen to be?
Belmont31R
06-29-12, 21:13
-John Marshall
Roberts included that quote in the ruling and I think that a lot of you would be wise to listen to it.
Roberts did not rewrite the law, he took a favorable reading of it that would let the law stand on constitutional grounds. That is what the SCOTUS is required to do,
He explains why it resembles a tax,
(Emphasis mine)
He gives an example of the court ruling that a tax was actually a penalty,
And now the part everyone is so worried about,
(emphasis again mine)
Roberts is no idiot and I would bet anything that he knows more about the constitution than everyone on this forum. His argument is well reasoned and well written as I said earlier. To think he was bought or something similar is, quite frankly, retarded.
I don't like how things turned out and I certainly don't like the law but that does not make it unconstitutional. It is not the job of the Court to strike down stupid laws, just unconstitutional ones and this one ended up being constitutional. Bitch all you want but it wasn't Roberts who screwed us over, it was the people we elected to represent us.
(Wouldn't it have been easier to just read the damn opinion for yourselves to get all of this? You wouldn't have had to deal with the formatting issues and you would have read even more information. Here is the link to the actual text as I still think that even though I just did 90% of the work for you, you should go read it- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
He is a moron. Buying gasonline is not even close to the same thing as being taxed because you DIDN'T buy something. Government has a legitimate reason to tax gasoline because it helps fund our roads, and the more you drive the more gas taxes you pay. So not only is only levied against people who drive on public roads but its also consumption based.
That has ZERO to do with being taxed because you DIDN'T buy something.
Again...nowhere in the Constitution does it say our rights are subject to the courts opinion on what reasonable restrictions are placed on them...yet he decides the authority to tax is basically unlimited? So we get whatever restrictions they decide go on our rights...but when it comes to powers he says the Constitution doesn't place limits on government authority. I guess those Founding Fathers snuck in that little nugget on taxing authority so the government would secretly have unlimited power only to be figured out in 2012...only with 4 communists and a so called conservative did we find out!
-John Marshall
Roberts included that quote in the ruling and I think that a lot of you would be wise to listen to it.
Roberts did not rewrite the law, he took a favorable reading of it that would let the law stand on constitutional grounds. That is what the SCOTUS is required to do,
He explains why it resembles a tax,
(Emphasis mine)
He gives an example of the court ruling that a tax was actually a penalty,
And now the part everyone is so worried about,
(emphasis again mine)
Roberts is no idiot and I would bet anything that he knows more about the constitution than everyone on this forum. His argument is well reasoned and well written as I said earlier. To think he was bought or something similar is, quite frankly, retarded.
I don't like how things turned out and I certainly don't like the law but that does not make it unconstitutional. It is not the job of the Court to strike down stupid laws, just unconstitutional ones and this one ended up being constitutional. Bitch all you want but it wasn't Roberts who screwed us over, it was the people we elected to represent us.
(Wouldn't it have been easier to just read the damn opinion for yourselves to get all of this? You wouldn't have had to deal with the formatting issues and you would have read even more information. Here is the link to the actual text as I still think that even though I just did 90% of the work for you, you should go read it- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
Let's assume that it is a tax. How do you reconcile that with Article 1, Section 7 that requires all taxes to originate in the Senate?
Smuckatelli
06-29-12, 22:12
Let's assume that it is a tax. How do you reconcile that with Article 1, Section 7 that requires all taxes to originate in the Senate?
I'm guessing.....the original bill came from the senate.
I'm also thinking that this was a very smooth move, labeling as a tax. Already the Administration is trying to label it as a penalty, not a tax:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
We are looking at getting a pretty large tax increase very soon. This 'tax' may be the thing that gives Republicans control of the Executive & Legislative Branch.
Just speculation....
To think he was bought or something similar is, quite frankly, retarded.
Sorry, retarded would be spinning an obvious act of in your face treachery, into a fanciful bit of farsighted genius, courtesy of the traitor. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, are all brilliant, they went to equally unprecedented lengths to "mock" Roberts "genius" in their dissent, they referred to it specifically as "feeble!"
There is no silver lining here, Roberts killed the republic as he opened up the floodgates to an enormous new stream of social engineering/plunder for the national democratic socialists, and in so doing, he has virtually cast "we the people" as slaves to the congress and their ability to levy taxes...
I'm guessing.....the original bill came from the senate.
I'm also thinking that this was a very smooth move, labeling as a tax. Already the Administration is trying to label it as a penalty, not a tax:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
We are looking at getting a pretty large tax increase very soon. This 'tax' may be the thing that gives Republicans control of the Executive & Legislative Branch.
Just speculation....
Obama, and his adminstration, have been calling it a penalty from the beginning, as have the national democratic socialists. One other thing, its not a "pretty large" tax increase, its the largest tax increase in the history of humanity!
ForTehNguyen
06-29-12, 23:09
if that Medicaid stuff is true, thats one way the States can say a big FU to Obamacare
Are we missing the forest for the trees?
Could Roberts be one of the craftiest men in government or in our time?
There are hints that he was on board with overturning ObamaCare as the now dissenting justices referred to themselves as "we" which when they've done that, it's often been to refer to the majority. So if he was on board, why the sudden flip flop? Did he realize that by striking down ObamaCare conservatives would rest more happily on their laurels that Obama would also be defeated in November and that there wouldn't be enough outrage to vote a Republican majority into the Senate? Look at how pissed people are including many on this board.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/todays-scotus-decision-dooms-obama-presidency
Could he have realized that by siding with the enemy and allowing significant parts of the law to pass he would make Democrats overconfident and cocky?
Look at Belmont's links and these.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Foule-Mouthed-Dems-Celebrate-ObamaCare-Bitches
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/28/Obama-Sells-Obamacare
Showing their true colors?
By seemingly interpreting ObamaCare as partially lawful and essentially deeming it a tax, did he know that would be more effective than denying it? He couldn't be obvious enough to fully support it but could hide behind a pragmatic interpretation of the Commerce Clause by labeling it a tax.
Say the law is one day repealed and is once again before the Supreme Court. While precedence holds some weight, there is nothing to say that the SCOTUS can't garner enough votes this time to overturn a previous decision of its own.
On the subject of stare decisis [precedence], referring to Brown v. Board, the decision overturning school segregation, Roberts said that "the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly.
Roberts studied for a short time under US Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist who helped strike down US v. Lopez dealing the hardest blow to the Commerce Clause and exceeding Congressional power since the 1930s. Roberts would later be appointed to replace Rehnquist when he died. People that think Roberts interpreted the law fairly are wrong IMO.
He was nominated by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-5. Joe Biden was one of the 5 nays. He was confirmed by a full Senate vote of 78-22. Obama was one of the 22 nays. And let's not forget the rocky administering of the Oath of Office between Roberts and Obama.
Could he desire to get Obama and company out of office whatever the cost, even if it means electing Romney and more importantly having a Republican majority in the House and Senate who would be much more powerful and hopefully have enough new conservative/libertarian thinkers to dwarf Romney's conformism?
Of course these are only wild conjectures and speculations but wouldn't that be one hell of an end game? Could this be the ultimate Judas kiss?
Do you really believe the "republicans" of today are going to do anything about Obamacare?
Seriously?
The majority of todays "republicans" voted in favor of such things as:
-Patriot Act
-Homeland Security Act
-National Defense Act of America
-FAA ACT/30,000 drones to be in the sky (thats 600 drones per state, FYI!)
-Indefinite detention on US soil (Only 19 "Repubs" voted against this dickhead bill)
The Repubs and Dems are the same thing at this point- and they don't represent the citizens of this country, they represent special interest groups, the UN, their own power grabbing agendas and most of all keeping the common citizen arguing across perceived political lines so they are too busy fighting their brothers to notice the encroachmment of liberty.
I hope your faith in the GOP shows itself in the form of a return to sanity and nullification/repeal of PACA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, FAA Act, NDAA, DEA, BATFE, EPA, etc, etc etc... I;'m not holding my breath.
I am not as naive and don't have much love for current crop of Reps, but overturning Obamacare could become their winning ticket in upcoming elections. If they chose to ride that ticket, and it seems like they would, then abandoning this promise after the election would be suicidal for them. Besides, they now don't need to come up with anything constructive as an alternative (and they never will), they just need to destroy current bill.
Are we missing the forest for the trees?
Could Roberts be one of the craftiest men in government or in our time?
There are hints that he was on board with overturning ObamaCare as the now dissenting justices referred to themselves as "we" which when they've done that, it's often been to refer to the majority. So if he was on board, why the sudden flip flop? Did he realize that by striking down ObamaCare conservatives would rest more happily on their laurels that Obama would also be defeated in November and that there wouldn't be enough outrage to vote a Republican majority into the Senate? Look at how pissed people are including many on this board.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/todays-scotus-decision-dooms-obama-presidency
Could he have realized that by siding with the enemy and allowing significant parts of the law to pass he would make Democrats overconfident and cocky?
Look at Belmont's links and these.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Foule-Mouthed-Dems-Celebrate-ObamaCare-Bitches
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/28/Obama-Sells-Obamacare
Showing their true colors?
By seemingly interpreting ObamaCare as partially lawful and essentially deeming it a tax, did he know that would be more effective than denying it? He couldn't be obvious enough to fully support it but could hide behind a pragmatic interpretation of the Commerce Clause by labeling it a tax.
Say the law is one day repealed and is once again before the Supreme Court. While precedence holds some weight, there is nothing to say that the SCOTUS can't garner enough votes this time to overturn a previous decision of its own.
Roberts studied for a short time under US Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist who helped strike down US v. Lopez dealing the hardest blow to the Commerce Clause and exceeding Congressional power since the 1930s. Roberts would later be appointed to replace Rehnquist when he died. People that think Roberts interpreted the law fairly are wrong IMO.
He was nominated by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-5. Joe Biden was one of the 5 nays. He was confirmed by a full Senate vote of 78-22. Obama was one of the 22 nays. And let's not forget the rocky administering of the Oath of Office between Roberts and Obama.
Could he desire to get Obama and company out of office whatever the cost, even if it means electing Romney and more importantly having a Republican majority in the House and Senate who would be much more powerful and hopefully have enough new conservative/libertarian thinkers to dwarf Romney's conformism?
Of course these are only wild conjectures and speculations but wouldn't that be one hell of an end game? Could this be the ultimate Judas kiss?
Just think about your post for a second. It implies that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court may have abandoned his sworn oath and went against his principles for a political gain (even though this particular political gain would be defeating Dems in elections). His job is to explain law clearly, concisely and without any secondary twists, not play Judas.
I'm guessing.....the original bill came from the senate.
I'm also thinking that this was a very smooth move, labeling as a tax. Already the Administration is trying to label it as a penalty, not a tax:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
We are looking at getting a pretty large tax increase very soon. This 'tax' may be the thing that gives Republicans control of the Executive & Legislative Branch.
Just speculation....
It did indeed come from the Senate. Thus, Robert's attempt to label it as a tax is also unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 7. The dissent is correct - there is no logic that can be used to make this law constitutional. In fact, Roberts would have been more intellectually consistent had he sided with the majority on the Commerce Clause. At least with that logic he would be stretching a somewhat ambiguous provision rather than ignoring a clearly delineated restriction in Article 1.
Also, people need to stop rejoicing that the Court somehow limited or restricted the Commerce Clause with this decision. Look carefully at the decision - there was no majority consensus on the Commerce Clause. On this topic, Roberts wrote for himself as the other members of the court were not able to cobble together a majority decision on the topic since they fragmented into ideological enclaves of less than 5 members.
So, what we have is a legitimized entitlement with no real opinion of the court on the Commerce Clause. Good luck getting this law repealed next year. Let's say that the Republicans hold on to the House and gain 5-6 seats in the Senate. That is still not a filibuster-proof majority. We would then need to wait until 2014 to pick-up more Senate seats. By that time, Obamacare will be in full force and trying to pry 50-million people off the public tit will be impossible.
Agree with you lane that this decision is illogical and provides no CC protection, just enables further entitlement.
I don't believe there is enough conservative principles in the R party that they would roll it back even with the presidency and Senate majorities.
Seems to blow wide open the door to use the IRS to impose "taxes that are penalties" for any non-participation in a govt program. No longer just incentives but now tax penalties. Didn't buy a Volt this year? $$$. Didn't pay union dues? $$$.
ForTehNguyen
06-30-12, 13:48
Articles: Turning ObamaCare's Lemons into Federalist Lemonade (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/turning_obamacares_lemons_into_federalist_lemonade.html)
June 30, 2012
Turning ObamaCare's Lemons into Federalist Lemonade
By Howard Slugh
Keep your heads up. Defenders of the health care law are going to continue to spike the football as if the Supreme Court vindicated their ideas and repudiated conservative ones. But that is not what happened. In the long run, conservatives may have won more than they lost. The court strengthened federalism by limiting the federal government's ability to coerce the states and establishing principled limits to the scope of the Commerce Clause. These legal victories will remain in place long after the political branches repeal ObamaCare.
That many liberals are celebrating the outcome of today's case, despite the court's rejection of their main legal arguments, indicates that they are concerned more with achieving their goals than with the law. They may live to regret this myopia.
This defeat offers conservatives an opportunity to highlight that they are different. It offers them an opportunity to show that they care about the law and the Constitution regardless of the outcome of any particular case. It is of the utmost importance that conservatives do not allow their disappointment at losing the battle to keep them from recognizing their very real and very significant victories. Moping about losing this battle is a waste of time and energy that they cannot afford.
The most hotly debated issue following the passage of ObamaCare was whether the Constitution's Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to coerce citizens into purchasing an item against their will. Conservatives rightly pointed out that if the Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to force a citizen to buy health insurance, it would give the government unconstrained authority. The biggest question seemed to be whether or not the Constitution imposed any limiting principle on the powers of the federal government. The Supreme Court's answer to this question was a resounding yes.
Five justices flatly rejected the administration's theory that the Commerce Clause empowered it to force citizens to purchase health care. Since a majority of the justices joined opinions espousing this principle, the lower courts will consider themselves bound to follow it. The court refused to accept the theory that the Commerce Clause allowed the government to regulate "inactivity" in the same way that it could regulate behavior. This is a vindication of a central conservative argument. The court went so far as to cite the now-famous analogy that if the Commerce Clause authorizes the federal government to force people to purchase health care, it would also empower them to force people to buy vegetables. Justice Roberts' opinion adopted the conservatives' most important legal argument nearly verbatim.
If the Court had adopted the liberal argument, it would have opened the door for any number of mandates in the future. It would have established an unprecedented grant of authority to the federal government that would have virtually ensured that liberals could adopt their entire wish list of social and economic programs under the guise of regulating commerce. Justice Roberts' opinion, along with the four dissenters, slammed the door on that scenario. If liberals want to use this opinion to adopt the items on their agenda, they are going to have to describe them as politically unpopular tax hikes. Congress might now technically have the power to tax anyone who does not buy enough broccoli, but the political consequences of passing such a tax are likely to dissuade them from ever doing so. This is a victory for the rule of law and will make it more difficult for the liberals to stealthily impose their agenda.
In a second victory for conservatives, the Court refused to allow the administration to use the denial of Medicaid funds as a doomsday weapon against the states. The health care law contained a provision that threatened to strip a state's Medicaid funds if it did not comply with sections of the bill that expanded Medicaid. Nearly every state depends on those funds and would face massive deficits and bankruptcy if administration withdrew them. If the federal government could threaten to bankrupt any state that did not adopt its policies, federalism would become a mere illusion. Seven justices agreed that the constitution does not permit this type of blackmail. The Court interpreted the provision so that it applied only to new Medicaid funds created under the health care law, and not pre-existing funds upon which the states already depend.
The federal government's ability to coerce states by placing conditions on funding has been a matter of controversy for decades. Some legal scholars indicate that this section of the ruling might have the greatest practical impact, and it was a decisive win for conservatives.
Sinking into despair is the worst thing that conservatives can do in response to the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act. Instead, conservatives should look to build on their victories. Justice Roberts' strong articulation of limits to the Commerce Clause indicates that conservatives should bring legal challenges to pare back some of the more egregious overreaches in that area. The fact that seven justices rejected the provision regarding the withdrawal of Medicaid funds indicates that the court might be ready to narrow other statutes with similar provisions, including some environmental regulations. This decision upheld a terrible law, but conservatives might be able to turn lemons into lemonade.
Howard Slugh is an attorney practicing in Washington. His writings can be read here.
Belmont31R
06-30-12, 13:50
Romney already said he doesn't want to repeal the entire thing, and getting a filibuster proof senate is going to be impossible.
ObamaCareTax is here to stay.
Roberts studied for a short time under US Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist who helped strike down US v. Lopez dealing the hardest blow to the Commerce Clause and exceeding Congressional power since the 1930s. Roberts would later be appointed to replace Rehnquist when he died. People that think Roberts interpreted the law fairly are wrong IMO.
He was nominated by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-5. Joe Biden was one of the 5 nays. He was confirmed by a full Senate vote of 78-22. Obama was one of the 22 nays. And let's not forget the rocky administering of the Oath of Office between Roberts and Obama.
Could he desire to get Obama and company out of office whatever the cost, even if it means electing Romney and more importantly having a Republican majority in the House and Senate who would be much more powerful and hopefully have enough new conservative/libertarian thinkers to dwarf Romney's conformism?
Of course these are only wild conjectures and speculations but wouldn't that be one hell of an end game? Could this be the ultimate Judas kiss?
This is a mingling of conspiracy theory & denial, Roberts could have assured that republicans swept back into total power this November by simply doing his job and striking down an unmistakablly unconstitutional infringement, instead, he has done exactly the opposite, the leftist rabble will flood the polls, Obama in the preceding weeks, has become dictator, and ditched any pretense of following the law!
Roberts treachery is right up there with Benedict Arnolds, worse actually, as Roberts has assured that the republic is killed, where as Arnold only tried to kill it!
Many of you are refusing to see the truth of what was done here, he didn't do anything with the commerce clause, he simply maintained status quo, but he greatly amplified the congress ability to levy tax, on virtually anything they wish, in fact its almost diabolocal, he has given the radical totalitarians the ability to levy taxes in exactly the fashion of the Islamists tax on infidels....
After Obama wins this November, it will all fall into place for you to see....
davidjinks
06-30-12, 15:33
This is the damn truth right here!!!
If there is ever a time you are in my neck of the woods, I would like to share a drink with you!
I have been predicting for some time now that if Obamacare passes, he will be re-elected. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
As I said previously, Obama is the strongest party in this country right now.
All of the mindless drones moving around have absolutely no clue what they have done. All those yelling "FREE, FREE, FREE" have all been ****ed, dry! Those few that we're without insurance will now be without insurance, money and property when the IRS is done with them.
Welcome to the new, new welfare state.
This is a mingling of conspiracy theory & denial, Roberts could have assured that republicans swept back into total power this November by simply doing his job and striking down an unmistakablly unconstitutional infringement, instead, he has done exactly the opposite, the leftist rabble will flood the polls, Obama in the preceding weeks, has become dictator, and ditched any pretense of following the law!
Roberts treachery is right up there with Benedict Arnolds, worse actually, as Roberts has assured that the republic is killed, where as Arnold only tried to kill it!
Many of you are refusing to see the truth of what was done here, he didn't do anything with the commerce clause, he simply maintained status quo, but he greatly amplified the congress ability to levy tax, on virtually anything they wish, in fact its almost diabolocal, he has given the radical totalitarians the ability to levy taxes in exactly the fashion of the Islamists tax on infidels....
After Obama wins this November, it will all fall into place for you to see....
Well you are a socialst, whether you wish to be or not, you now live in a totalitartian socialist state, few taxpayers have any idea how deep, and intrusive this thing truly happens to be, it was crafted by Soviet styled socialists, to give the federal juggernaut absolute, total, control, of each citizen, from cradle to grave! Apparently, you have convinced yourself that its all just political hyperbole, God help you, its not!
Its horrifying, I fought against communist collectivism, and here I find myself, just two presidents after Reagan, and almost every American thirty and under, now thoroughly inculcated into the Soviet mindset, they are going to be getting exactly what they deserve, they are completely clueless as to what is coming for them, and almost certainly, totally defenseless...
This is a mingling of conspiracy theory & denial, Roberts could have assured that republicans swept back into total power this November by simply doing his job and striking down an unmistakablly unconstitutional infringement, instead, he has done exactly the opposite, the leftist rabble will flood the polls, Obama in the preceding weeks, has become dictator, and ditched any pretense of following the law!
Roberts treachery is right up there with Benedict Arnolds, worse actually, as Roberts has assured that the republic is killed, where as Arnold only tried to kill it!
Many of you are refusing to see the truth of what was done here, he didn't do anything with the commerce clause, he simply maintained status quo, but he greatly amplified the congress ability to levy tax, on virtually anything they wish, in fact its almost diabolocal, he has given the radical totalitarians the ability to levy taxes in exactly the fashion of the Islamists tax on infidels....
After Obama wins this November, it will all fall into place for you to see....
It's exactly this type of apathetic thinking that lead to Obama being elected in the first place. The left is happy with Obama! They'll sit on their collective asses since they feel they've won a small battle in the war.
Reagan wasn't always the conservative darling you make him out to be.
Look up "2010 mid-term elections". No amount of illegal voters and whatever machine Democrats have in place prevented 63 seat gain by Republicans. If electorate en mass wants to have this repealed - the electorate has means to it.
Exactly. My posts above were far fetched as I admitted but out of the box thinking instead of sitting on our asses and doing nothing may be what we need. Roberts has a lifelong record of voting down governmental overreaching so why would he now change his mind at the last minute? It wasn't because he suddenly decided it must be lawful. If even Kennedy was against it don't you think he could've easily went along with them? He didn't do this to follow the letter of the law. It was all highly unlawful to begin with. Anyone that thinks a SCOTUS judge would never make a decision based on politics is frankly being naive. Of course they have to keep their decision within an interpretation of the law but it can be one that suits their needs.
in fact its almost diabolocal,
After Obama wins this November, it will all fall into place for you to see....
It really does have a near sinister feel to it all.
Why the hell the right is eating it up as genius I can not understand.
This is like Baghdad Bob on steroids. Yeah man we got screwed on ObamaCare but Roberts is a genius. With friends like him we don't need more enemies that's for sure. The Romney supporters are not organized enough for this type genius. I think maybe he's too brilliant. Just give us normal.
The right now has to rally an entire nation of Romney supporters to fulfill the plan of King Roberts the Brilliant. I just don't see it happening.
Speaking the truth is not "apathy" or anywhere near it. I have fought in a pair of wars, voted in every major election, including holding my nose last go round, and punching one for McCain.
Apathetic, is what the under thirties are, fat, lazy, thoroughly self-absorbed. Apathetic is sitting back and whining, as though there is no difference between two potential outcomes, so why bother!
You have confused cynicism with apathy, dangerous blunder that....
Salon.com contributor Professor Paul Campos tells Cenk that part of what caused confusion over the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act was that the case text focused a lot on the dissent. But Campos explains that that wording might have been intentional, not an editing error. “I think that the four dissenting judges are so angry, that they decided not to edit that and leave that in as, essentially, a tell,” Campos says,” letting everybody know that, in fact, Roberts — in their view– stabbed them in the back at the last moment.”
Not a deep thinking genius, just plain old fashioned treachery... I'm not afraid to speculate as to his motivations, was the genius compromised by Obama's people somehow? At this late stage, and taking into account the massive amount of lawlessness associated with the national democratic socialist party, and its president, you'd just have to have your head up your ass not to be suspicious.
ForTehNguyen
07-01-12, 09:40
the more I read about the Commerce Clause and Medicaid rules were blocked, the more I am seeing this ruling as a huge victory for the Republic. I am getting more optimistic by the day regarding this ruling. Just have to read between the lines a little.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_chief_justice_done_good.html
June 29, 2012
The Chief Justice Done Good
By Dov Fischer
Chief Justice John Roberts has handed a remarkable victory to American conservatives by threading the judicial needle with perfect precision. The initial disappointment collectively felt by Americans who had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Obamacare soon will be replaced, upon further reflection, by the excitement that will come with a fuller appreciation of what the Chief Justice has wrought.
First, almost completely unnoticed, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in drawing an unprecedented red line against Washington wielding the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the future to justify federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. This decision will restrict American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more.
Until Thursday's decision, for more than 70 years, virtually every leading Supreme Court decision on the reach of the Commerce Clause has sided with federal intrusion. Although there have been isolated exceptions -- e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limiting federal regulation regarding carrying guns near schools) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limiting power of the federal government to expand rights of women to sue attackers) -- the leading cases on the Commerce Clause, often relying on precedents like Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (holding that Congress could prevent a person from growing wheat for his own personal consumption on his own private land), have held that the federal government can force Americans to do or not do, to buy or not buy, virtually anything if couched as an act to facilitate or regulate interstate commerce. Wickard "always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence." (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting, at 3.)
It was this very line of Wickard-consistent Supreme Court opinions that served as the basis for a long line of lower federal courts, both district courts and federal appeals courts, choosing to uphold ObamaCare as that bill was tested through the judiciary. However, with Chief Justice Roberts almost surreptitiously joining with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in ruling that ObamaCare is barred by the federal Commerce Clause, a new era has begun in Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Every liberal citation to Wickard will be countered by a conservative citing to Chief Justice Roberts's opinion: "If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. . . . The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. . . . The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Slip op. at 3, 41-42, 44)
There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. An American cannot be compelled by federal mandate to eat or even to buy a proverbial stalk of broccoli. As a kosher consumer, the federal government cannot wield that clause to impose on me an obligation to purchase non-kosher food supplements. The rules guiding lower-court wrestling matches over federal power to invade Americans' private lives now have been reset remarkably by Chief Justice Roberts. Few today notice what he has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.
It is understandable that most Americans, who are not law school graduates, do not think in these terms, nor do most pundits outside the legal community who interpret news. However, attorneys and certainly law professors get it. We know what happened on Thursday. It was subtle and below the radar, like a tsunami beginning in the middle of an ocean, still days away from the shore. Only the trained insiders know what that rumbling will cause in the future. This was a tsunami, finally giving us our first Supreme Court precedential holding in nearly a century that reins in the federal government's unbridled abuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. And the liberals, excited as they understandably are by the temporary survival of ObamaCare, do not even realize what has happened to a pillar of their enterprise. And that is fine.
Secondly, Chief Justice Roberts has punted the whole ninety yards, so to speak, with the expertise of a professional football kicker whose team has the ball on its own 8-yard-line, then punts ninety yards, pinning the other team on their own two-yard-line. Had Chief Justice Roberts sided completely with his four conservative colleagues, Obamacare now would be off the political table for the November elections. Obama would be campaigning and mobilizing his troops' passions, arguing an urgent need to reconfigure the Court. Romney, by contrast, would be trying to mobilize passion for a lackluster campaign that is impelled legitimately by one crying urgency: jobs and the economy. However, Romney is not gifted at bringing people to their feet, not for applauding and possibly not for voting. He is competent, perhaps excellent, maybe even extraordinary -- but his blandness does not generate passion.
Jobs and the economy are critical issues, but tricky ones to explain. The federal government effectively shades statistics by hiding the full destructive impact of Obama's economic programs. People who cannot find work at the compensation level they need and for which they are qualified -- an enormous population subset we call the "under-compensated" -- nevertheless are counted as "employed" when they settle for jobs below their previous attained levels.
Meanwhile, when others give up hope and stop looking for work altogether, resigning themselves to failure and long-term unemployment, they are deemed by statisticians to have removed themselves from the work force, so are not counted among the unemployed. We the more sophisticated observers of the political process understand these statistical anomalies. We understand that statistics declaring American unemployment at 8.2% really are closer to 12% and even 14% when we factor-in the plight of the underemployed and those who have given up hope.
Unlike the unemployment issue, where statistics are obfuscated, Obamacare is a signature campaign issue. It is clear, comprehensible, simple -- and despised. It galvanized, even helped create, the Tea Party. Passionate opposition against the law led to a convulsive November 2010 election that resulted in fabulous Republican gains and the worst "shellacking" experienced by any political party in the modern era. Two years have passed since 2010, and ObamaCare was about to be removed as a campaign issue in November.
Instead, even as he cast a powerful vote to rein in the Commerce Clause as our Founding Fathers intended for it to be applied against federal intrusiveness, Chief Justice Roberts returned Obamacare front-and-center back into the November elections debate. Defining it for what it really is -- a new, enormous federal tax on at least four million Americans (Slip op. at 37) -- the Chief Justice has lobbed a fat hanging curveball for conservatives to clobber. The ObamaCare tax does not apply to those who presently are untaxed, and it will not apply to the more wealthy, who will be excused because they carry health insurance anyway. Rather, the President who promised no new taxes against the middle class conclusively has been "outed" by the Chief Justice as having imposed the biggest tax on middle-class Americans in a generation.
Third, the Chief Justice has shifted the spotlight back onto Congress, primarily focusing its glare on the Democrat-run U.S. Senate, only four months before the elections. Republicans rapidly will beat down ObamaCare in the House like a piñata at a children's party. It is an easy target. It is excessive and intrusive. It is financially devastating, will cause employers to drop health coverage for their employees, and will force millions to lose their preferred doctors and instead to settle on government-supplied alternatives. Seniors will find that $500 million in coverage has been sliced out of their Medicare.
Employers will continue resisting expanding their work forces and reviving the flagging labor market while the issue remains in flux, assuring stagnating unemployment numbers through November.
Fourth, the Chief Justice, while permitting the federal government to offer states more money to expand their Medicaid rolls beyond their fiscal capabilities, joined with his four conservative colleagues in banning Washington from penalizing states that turn down the federal inducements to march towards bankruptcy. As a result, the working poor will find that the federal government, while taxing them to buy new health coverage, has been left without a mechanism to compel others to pay for the ObamaCare state insurance exchanges. So the feds will have to pay for it in non-cooperating states that are more fiscally prudent. Only more taxes can pay for those costs.
So Congress has a massive new mess awaiting it, all as voters prepare to vote for a new Congress and for 33 United States Senate seats, 23 now held by Democrats and their two "independent" allies. House Republicans solidly will vote symbolically to overturn the legislative monstrosity, and they will find endangered House Democrats breaking ranks with their leadership to vote with them.
Senate Democrats facing reelection will be caught in a vise. Harry Reid will be trying desperately to prevent a vote on ObamaCare repeal from reaching the Senate floor, even as national news coverage focuses on the two national parties' conventions. Obama's staff may be renting Greek or Roman columns, but the Republicans will be toppling the pillars of the failed Obama Presidency
This is going to be OK, even fun. Just wait and see. The Chief Justice done us good.
Dov Fischer, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School, is a columnist for several online magazines and is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County. He blogs at rabbidov.com.
VooDoo6Actual
07-01-12, 10:00
Florida Gov. Scott: We won’t implement Obamacare
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167158/Florida-governor-vows-REFUSE-comply-Obamacare-defiance-U-S-Supreme-Court-ruling-upheld-law.html
http://htpolitics.com/2012/06/30/scott-we-wont-implement-obamacare/
The FUBO train is now boarding...
On a completely different tangent but it is concatenated check this out & read the comments:
http://www.americancopmagazine.com/will-you-do-it/
I'm sure MK18Pilot is tuned in ......LoL
the more I read about the Commerce Clause and Medicaid rules were blocked, the more I am seeing this ruling as a huge victory for the Republic. I am getting more optimistic by the day regarding this ruling. Just have to read between the lines a little.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_chief_justice_done_good.html
Nice read.
I've believed all along Roberts was pinch hitting for Romney who let's face it can use all the help he can get in November. Some are saying Roberts was bullied or pressured by Obama. Horseshit! This may be a short game being played to limp by until Obama is out of office but the more small battles that are won along the way leaves us a better chance of winning the war.
Stand on principle if you will but if any of you expect to not concede some ground in the short term to win in the long game, you won't be left with anything. By not taking an inch from McCain, we've allowed Obama to cram a foot down our throats. I know hindsight's 20-20 but we wouldn't be having this conversation if McCain would've been elected. It may be hard to stomach but it's true.
33 United States Senate seats are up for grabs and all remaining Democrats (House or Senate) will be facing the decision to vote for self preservation or put a nail in their own coffins.
Jobs and the economy are in the tank.
Regardless how Romney feels about keeping any provisions of ObamaCare (if that is even true), if Congress is able to vote this tax down, Romney will rubber stamp it or it will be suicide.
More and more "green" energy companies propped up by BHO's administration are failing and will leave taxpayers the bill.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/03/06/why_so_many_green_energy_companies_fail/page/full/
Look as evidenced by the 2010 mid-term elections how afraid people were of Obama(Care) and now that it's partially enacted???
These are the perfect opportunities to galvanize voters come November.
the more I read about the Commerce Clause and Medicaid rules were blocked, the more I am seeing this ruling as a huge victory for the Republic. I am getting more optimistic by the day regarding this ruling. Just have to read between the lines a little.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_chief_justice_done_good.html
Unfortunately, your celebration may be a little premature. There was no majority consensus opinion (i.e. Opinion of the Court) on the CC. Thus, the historical rulings are the controlling precedent. This article from Mark Levin (one of my favorite conservative legal thinkers and an authority on SCOTUS) is a good explanation of what really happened.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304459/mark-levin-not-so-fast-commerce-clause-kathryn-jean-lopez
Here is the pertinent portion of his analysis:
But respecting Part III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, the decision notes that Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority. Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.
You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which did not formally join with Roberts), is writing for itself.
In fact, Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:
“The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor*rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others’ parts. They didn’t. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.
The one point that may be grounds for celebration centers around the fact that, as a tax, the PPACA is a revenue bill that is subject to a closure vote in the Senate during any attempt at repeal. This means that only a simple majority is needed without invoking the "nuclear option." As a tax, this bill becomes much easier to repeal under conventional means provided that the GOP holds their majority in the House, picks-up at least 3 seats in the Senate, and Romney wins the POTUS.
RancidSumo
07-01-12, 16:33
Speaking the truth is not "apathy" or anywhere near it. I have fought in a pair of wars, voted in every major election, including holding my nose last go round, and punching one for McCain.
Apathetic, is what the under thirties are, fat, lazy, thoroughly self-absorbed. Apathetic is sitting back and whining, as though there is no difference between two potential outcomes, so why bother!
You have confused cynicism with apathy, dangerous blunder that....
:rolleyes:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html
Obama won every age group under 45 and tied the 45-59 age group. The "under thirties" only make up 18% of the electorate so it can't just be all our fault.
Unfortunately, your celebration may be a little premature. There was no majority consensus opinion (i.e. Opinion of the Court) on the CC. Thus, the historical rulings are the controlling precedent. This article from Mark Levin (one of my favorite conservative legal thinkers and an authority on SCOTUS) is a good explanation of what really happened.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304459/mark-levin-not-so-fast-commerce-clause-kathryn-jean-lopez
Here is the pertinent portion of his analysis:
But respecting Part III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, the decision notes that Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority. Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.
You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which did not formally join with Roberts), is writing for itself.
In fact, Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:
“The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor*rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others’ parts. They didn’t. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.
The one point that may be grounds for celebration centers around the fact that, as a tax, the PPACA is a revenue bill that is subject to a closure vote in the Senate during any attempt at repeal. This means that only a simple majority is needed without invoking the "nuclear option." As a tax, this bill becomes much easier to repeal under conventional means provided that the GOP holds their majority in the House, picks-up at least 3 seats in the Senate, and Romney wins the POTUS.
Levin is the guy you folks should be listening to, not some Rockefeller republican law professor, Roberts was scathingly rebuked by the real "geniuses" of the court as having made a feeble argument...
:rolleyes:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html
Obama won every age group under 45 and tied the 45-59 age group. The "under thirties" only make up 18% of the electorate so it can't just be all our fault.
Excuse me, but thats irrelevant to my point....I have no intention of bickering over such pablum, the thing you need to be focusing on right now, is stockpiling weapons, ammunition, can goods, medical supplies, and hooking up with like minded men & women that you can trust, that, or start preparing to turn them over after the November elections!
In my very humble opinion, those are the only choices, we are not going to win in November, these events are being manipulated....
Levin is the guy you folks should be listening to, not some Rockefeller republican law professor, Roberts was scathingly rebuked by the real "geniuses" of the court as having made a feeble argument...
I'm not sure how much of your post was sarcasm (possibly the limitation of written communication), but most people consider Scalia to be the brains behind the conservative movement on SCOTUS. Robert's opinion only solidified this perception and insures that he will lead the Court only in title. That is to say, he will not be a persuasive force for the conservative cause after this debacle - sad. He took a big step toward becoming the Bill Clinton of the Court; he has lots of potential, but lacks moral courage.
As for Levin, I know that he is not popular with the Libertarians on this forum due to his outspoken criticism of Ron Paul. However, his knowledge of SCOTUS history and process is second to none (I've read his book Men in Black). Let me know if you disagree with the content of his analysis of the CC issue. I'm not a lawyer and would be interested in hearing an alternative perspective.
I'm not sure how much of your post was sarcasm (possibly the limitation of written communication), but most people consider Scalia to be the brains behind the conservative movement on SCOTUS. Robert's opinion only solidified this perception and insures that he will lead the Court only in title. That is to say, he will not be a persuasive force for the conservative cause after this debacle - sad. He took a big step toward becoming the Bill Clinton of the Court; he has lots of potential, but lacks moral courage.
As for Levin, I know that he is not popular with the Libertarians on this forum due to his outspoken criticism of Ron Paul. However, his knowledge of SCOTUS history and process is second to none (I've read his book Men in Black). Let me know if you disagree with the content of his analysis of the CC issue. I'm not a lawyer and would be interested in hearing an alternative perspective.
I meant it, Levin nailed it, he didn't mince any words, he referred to Roberts decision as "lawless!" There is absolutely no silver lining here, worse, Roberts, and the other leftists, opened up an entirely new avenue of 'taxation' to the congress, "inactivity!" Jason Lewis put it even more bluntly, Roberts has enslaved us to the congress and its now unlimited ability to levy taxes, on virtually anything at all....And by referring to the real "geniuses" of the court, I am referring to Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy...
ForTehNguyen
07-01-12, 21:49
I meant it, Levin nailed it, he didn't mince any words, he referred to Roberts decision as "lawless!" There is absolutely no silver lining here, worse, Roberts, and the other leftists, opened up an entirely new avenue of 'taxation' to the congress, "inactivity!" Jason Lewis put it even more bluntly, Roberts has enslaved us to the congress and its now unlimited ability to levy taxes, on virtually anything at all....And by referring to the real "geniuses" of the court, I am referring to Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy...
Congress is forced now to use the word tax to further sell crap to us. That is a lot harder to sell to the public now than just abusing the Commerce Clause. Abuse of which has been rampant for the past century. No longer can they hide behind the CC and they have to use the dirty word "tax"
I still seeing this as a strategic long term victory. Sure Obamacare is around but the Medicaid ruling seems to essentially allow the States to say FU I'm not going to obey Obamacare and you Feds cant retaliate by taking Medicaid funding away.
Honestly people are mad that now Congress can tax us on behaviors? What was going to stop them from doing it before this ruling? Nothing, they nearly do whatever they want already. I dont see what exactly changed. They dont like to do that because like I said before they have to use the dirty word "tax" that really goes over the public like a lead balloon. Thats why they tried so hard to market this thing as a "penalty". Obama and the Dems are going to do one hell of a backpedal to explain this one...right before a major election. Again Roberts ruling is looking more and more ingenious, you just have to read between the lines a bit. Roberts just took away Big Govts commerce clause and state blackmail card and that forces them to use the high APR tax card. Its going to be that much harder to sell us their snake oil when you bring up the word tax. Brilliant.
Congress is forced now to use the word tax to further sell crap to us. That is a lot harder to sell to the public now than just abusing the Commerce Clause. Abuse of which has been rampant for the past century. No longer can they hide behind the CC and they have to use the dirty word "tax"
I still seeing this as a strategic long term victory. Sure Obamacare is around but the Medicaid ruling seems to essentially allow the States to say FU I'm not going to obey Obamacare and you Feds cant retaliate by taking Medicaid funding away.
Honestly people are mad that now Congress can tax us on behaviors? What was going to stop them from doing it before this ruling? Nothing, they nearly do whatever they want already. I dont see what exactly changed. They dont like to do that because like I said before they have to use the dirty word "tax" that really goes over the public like a lead balloon. Thats why they tried so hard to market this thing as a "penalty". Obama and the Dems are going to do one hell of a backpedal to explain this one...right before a major election. Again Roberts ruling is looking more and more ingenious, you just have to read between the lines a bit.
But respecting Part III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, the decision notes that Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority. Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.
You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which did not formally join with Roberts), is writing for itself.
In fact, Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:
“The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor*rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others’ parts. They didn’t. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.
Do you see? The commerce clause BS is just that, meaningless BS. It carries no legal weight...
ForTehNguyen
07-01-12, 22:54
Do you see? The commerce clause BS is just that, meaningless BS. It carries no legal weight...
The opinion Roberts wrote is what is going to be used as reference in future court cases. Quite frequently the opinion itself is more important than the ruling. The opinion clearly stated that they cannot use the commerce clause to force people to buy stuff, period. The chief justice, if on the majority side, can choose who writes the opinion - even choosing himself. There's obviously a reason why he chose himself. The way the opinion is worded is incredibly important. Chief Justice Warren Burger did the exact same thing to make sure important rulings got ruled.
Now there appears to be multiple ways Obamacare will get neutered or threatened. So what exactly did Roberts give to the Dems? He gave them an empty box to celebrate and later that box turns into a time bomb. Now right before an election a repeal bill will definitely show up and now they have to use the word tax. You can guaran-damn-tee that the votes will not be the same this time around with the seats up for election after 2 years worth of stigma on this bill. Expect some Dems to bail so they can save their own rear by not voting for a tax bill. So fine a pre election repeal doesn't work. You can expect some major Dem attrition after the election for those who voted against the repeal of this "tax" bill. The less Dems there are after the election, the greater the chances that a real repeal can again appear (assuming a Republican president is elected). Now the Medicaid ruling is there that allows the States to essentially ignore Obamacare without having their Medicaid funding yanked. How the hell is the govt going to enforce this now when 10, 15, 20 states say screw you without any fear of federal retaliation? So much for national healthcare if half the states opted out.
Again so what exactly did Roberts give to the Dems? A nasty minefield is what he gave them.
I don't see how Robert's opinion on the commerce clause has any restraint capability when he turns right around and says you can do anything you want as long as it is a tax, even when the Congress and WH stated categorically it is not a tax. Politicians can play this game year after year.
I don't even see how his opinion it is a tax will any impact except semantics. WH will still act as if it is a penalty because it did not start in House as all tax measures should. As long as no branch of govt is willing to exert its right to check and balance then semantics are moot point.
You can argue all you want about potential benefit but the proof is in the pudding. I predict even if the long shot chance Repubs won the WH and Senate we will NOT see Obamacare rolled back. Whatever you want to call it, Roberts let it stand as law and it will be as hard to rollback as SSA.
ForTehNguyen
07-01-12, 23:14
again, what exactly was stopping Congress from taxing us on whatever it wanted before the ruling? There wasnt anything stopping them. So what exactly changed with this ruling?
The opinion Roberts wrote is what is going to be used as reference in future court cases. Quite frequently the opinion itself is more important than the ruling. The opinion clearly stated that they cannot use the commerce clause to force people to buy stuff, period. The chief justice, if on the majority side, can choose who writes the opinion - even choosing himself. There's obviously a reason why he chose himself. The way the opinion is worded is incredibly important. Chief Justice Warren Burger did the exact same thing to make sure important rulings got ruled.
Then, it appears that one of us is confused. I've never heard that the single opinion of a justice carries the weight of an Opinion of the Court (i.e. majority opinion) in setting precident. As of now, that precident is still Gonzales v. Raich which gave sweeping authority to the Feds under the CC. Here is the best article that I've seen in describing the inner workings of this decision:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
...the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
It appears that the 4 conservative justices were so disgusted with Roberts that they refused to concur with him on the issue of the CC. They were basically banishing him to solitary confinement on the Island of Stupid. On the other hand, I suppose that Roberts could be a mental giant that is understood only by a handful of supporters and hardcore liberals, while the rest of us (including the four conservative justices of the Court) are incapable of grasping his brilliance. Come on...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/
This creeps treachery was far worse than Benedict Arnold's, far worse...
Then, it appears that one of us is confused. I've never heard that the single opinion of a justice carries the weight of an Opinion of the Court (i.e. majority opinion) in setting precident. As of now, that precident is still Gonzales v. Raich which gave sweeping authority to the Feds under the CC. Here is the best article that I've seen in describing the inner workings of this decision:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
...the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
It appears that the 4 conservative justices were so disgusted with Roberts that they refused to concur with him on the issue of the CC. They were basically banishing him to solitary confinement on the Island of Stupid. On the other hand, I suppose that Roberts could be a mental giant that is understood only by a handful of supporters and hardcore liberals, while the rest of us (including the four conservative justices of the Court) are incapable of grasping his brilliance. Come on...
Its left me just sick to my stomach, literally, physically, sick to my stomach. What I'm doing now is researching this prick in detail, all the way back to Reagan, looking for any sign of such dissociative radicalism, I'm betting that there is none, my gut instinct tells me that this guy, who was instrumental in Citizens United, and Heller, was compromised by the same administration folks that admired chairman mao, and hung ornaments in his likeness from the white house christmas tree...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/supreme-court-roberts/roberts.html
polydeuces
07-02-12, 07:45
What baffles me most is that there are models and existing structures across the world we can study to determine and use what works for us - Canada being one closest by, apparently working just fine (in general).
That and the fact that anyone can be against the honest concept of universal health-care, where affordable quality healthcare/insurance should be available to anyone willing to pay a reasonable rate.
Having had first hand experience with "socialized medicine" I can attest to it's quality. And having been refused by every US-based (health-care) insurance companies for "pre-exising conditions" I can tell you stories about their greed and utter lack of concern.
So why those needing it the most keep calling it bad because it reeks of "socialism" is beyond me.
Or those politicians voting against it while they fully reap all the benefits of just that "socialized medicine": isn't it true they are fully covered, at the tax-payers expense?
The fundamental flaw in this entire process, and I daresay, all things political in the US is the existence of the all-mighty lobbyist, who's influence manages to take any good idea or concept and savagely pervert it by making sure whatever viable profit can be extracted at all cost, and in the process thoroughly corrupt what started out as a pretty decent governmental structure.
With recent supreme court rulings worsening the prospect of anything improving any time soon.
Do away with the lobbyists and we may be able to get what we need so desperately: by the people for the people. Until then, it's the "special interest" (corporate greed) ruling.
By that - in this case - I mean the insurance companies.
For instance but not limited to; have you ever noticed how hard it is to file claims or get any type of reimbursement, get anything approved, the myriad of procedures departments and hoops you have to jump though? ANY-thing to confuse and create opaqueness
While for them to get paid....nothing is is as easy as that in any shape or form, quicker than you can dial 1-800 or hit the return key.
So anyone truly believing they will receive the care they need and can afford, ever, if left to whims of the insurance machine, well, dream on. And what is a physician to do?
davidjinks
07-02-12, 08:03
Ok, so here's a question:
SCOTUS came out and said ACA stands because it's a tax.
However, all of the douchebags that crammed this thing down our throats are going against what the SCOTUS has stated. They're all saying it's a penalty NOT a tax.
With all that being said, if the ruling from the SCOTUS says it stands, as a TAX, but the powers that be are saying it IS NOT A TAX, then wouldn't that nullify the ruling of the SCOTUS and in turn make it unconstitutional?
So who's right? SCOTUS? Senate? House?
I'm just not really tracking on this decision. It either is or it isn't a tax.
I read the Constitution again last night. I don't see anywhere in there that says we can be taxed or fined for NOT buying something. Anyone want to weigh in on that?
Raven Armament
07-02-12, 08:28
What may seem to work for 10 million Canadians will not work for 350+ million Americans plus another 10-15 million illegals. I've got a few classmates that moved to Canada and absolute have nothing good to say about their healthcare system. They moved back to the US and are now horrified by this decision and are now freaking out at where to live to avoid socialized healthcare.
Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. They have policies in place to provide for that. This law was sold as healthcare reform when in reality it's insurance reform that doesn't do much to improve things.
Health insurance in America is overused by the people that have it. What reform needs to be done is in the policy coverages area. Health insurance should be similar to automobile insurance. You don't bill your insurance for a flat tire, oil changes, brake pads, etc because that's all general maintenance much like common, short term illness. Insurance is billed for damages (ie major stuff that isn't maintenance). Lemons are covered under warranty, and since there is no one to warranty your body other than yourself, it's apples to oranges.
If your child has a cold, go to Walgreen's and buy some cold medicine. Can't afford the name brand stuff, buy generic. Don't take them to the doctor so they can tell you he's got a cold, and here's a prescription. You're looking at $50 to $100 for the doctor visit, $200 for the testing, and $80 for the prescription. You'll have a $20 co-pay for the visit, pay 80% of the lab work, and $10 for the prescription. A $6 trip to the store instead costs you $70 and the insurance company $270-$310. That is a big part of the problem and part of why healthcare keeps rising in cost. A child gets 3-4 colds in a winter (schools are essentially a petrie dish) so quadruple those numbers and apply that to the 60% (WAG) of children in school who are insured by their parents or some state funded program.
That is not what insurance should be used for.
Insurance should be used for major illnesses or health conditions and injuries. Break a bone, use insurance. Diabetic, cancer, long term and deadly illness, organ removal and/or transplant, stroke, etc. Insurance companies can compete with certain other major coverages such as birth control, both temporary (ie the pill, Nuva ring, etc) and/or permanent (ie vasectomy or tube tying). Premiums would be way less and payouts would be made for major stuff instead of little piddly shit that wastes time and money. I think it would be closer to the Aflac stuff my employer (day job) offers. Family of 4 covered for $60 a month. Very affordable. My employer covers me and my paycheck is deducted $15 per check ($30/mo) to cover my wife and two kids.
The part of the law I unequivocally agree with is the pre-existing condition stuff. That's reform and I think that's a correct regulation of the insurance industry. Regulations are to be broad, not micromanaging.
Raven Armament
07-02-12, 08:30
I'm just not really tracking on this decision. It either is or it isn't a tax.
The highest court in the country says it's a tax, it's a tax.
I read the Constitution again last night. I don't see anywhere in there that says we can be taxed or fined for NOT buying something. Anyone want to weigh in on that?
It's not in the Constitution, it's in a SCOTUS case dating back to 1942 where a farmer growing his own wheat and not buying from the local market was compelled to buy because his not buying effected commerce. I can't think of the case but it was mentioned in this decision and someone posted it earlier in this thread.
davidjinks
07-02-12, 08:35
Wickard v. Filburn
I see what you're saying.
My point being; is it a tax or a fine? If it isn't a tax then that should nullify the SCOTUS decision.
The highest court in the country says it's a tax, it's a tax.
It's not in the Constitution, it's in a SCOTUS case dating back to 1942 where a farmer growing his own wheat and not buying from the local market was compelled to buy because his not buying effected commerce. I can't think of the case but it was mentioned in this decision and someone posted it earlier in this thread.
Raven Armament
07-02-12, 08:40
The powers that be is the SCOTUS, not the legislature and not the executive office. It is a tax and the law stands. It's not nullified because the legislature or the executive office says it's a penalty, not a tax. Under judicial review, SCOTUS said what it is and they are the deciding body in matters like this. The legislature and executive office can say whatever they want, the judicial branch calls the shots with regard to what things are or are not. The legislature and executive branches are calling it a penalty for political reasons, not legal reasons, because they are trying to avoid the political damage of raising taxes on working class Americans.
davidjinks
07-02-12, 09:04
All of this is a disgrace! Political pandering, lies, desceet...
Tax or fine, what's the difference? It's still the government taking YOUR money.
What baffles me most is that there are models and existing structures across the world we can study to determine and use what works for us - Canada being one closest by, apparently working just fine (in general).
That and the fact that anyone can be against the honest concept of universal health-care, where affordable quality healthcare/insurance should be available to anyone willing to pay a reasonable rate.
Having had first hand experience with "socialized medicine" I can attest to it's quality. And having been refused by every US-based (health-care) insurance companies for "pre-exising conditions" I can tell you stories about their greed and utter lack of concern.
So why those needing it the most keep calling it bad because it reeks of "socialism" is beyond me.
Or those politicians voting against it while they fully reap all the benefits of just that "socialized medicine": isn't it true they are fully covered, at the tax-payers expense?
The fundamental flaw in this entire process, and I daresay, all things political in the US is the existence of the all-mighty lobbyist, who's influence manages to take any good idea or concept and savagely pervert it by making sure whatever viable profit can be extracted at all cost, and in the process thoroughly corrupt what started out as a pretty decent governmental structure.
With recent supreme court rulings worsening the prospect of anything improving any time soon.
Do away with the lobbyists and we may be able to get what we need so desperately: by the people for the people. Until then, it's the "special interest" (corporate greed) ruling.
By that - in this case - I mean the insurance companies.
For instance but not limited to; have you ever noticed how hard it is to file claims or get any type of reimbursement, get anything approved, the myriad of procedures departments and hoops you have to jump though? ANY-thing to confuse and create opaqueness
While for them to get paid....nothing is is as easy as that in any shape or form, quicker than you can dial 1-800 or hit the return key.
So anyone truly believing they will receive the care they need and can afford, ever, if left to whims of the insurance machine, well, dream on. And what is a physician to do?
Wow, where to start with this one? So much distortion, so little time.
OK, let's go with Canada and other socialized countries first. Have you ever noticed that the more socialized the healthcare system, the more the country relies on its neighbors. That is why Hugo Chavez went to Cuba and the wealth of the Middle East comes to the US for their care. It is also the reason why I routinely saw Canadians in the Cleveland Clinic ER (when I was a resident) who sailed across Lake Erie with active chest pain or severe abdominal pain. Hell, even the VA relies heavily on local private healthcare resources for very sub-specialized care. This means that other countries have the luxury of socialized medicine when the US is available to drive medical innovation and progress. Another issue is that socialized countries spend an extraordinary amount of their GDP on healthcare. To do the same in the US would require a complete realignment of our economy and infrastructure. As others have mentioned, Canada does not have 4-6 million illegal aliens coming across its border or an impoverished/uneducated minority population to support - apples and oranges.
As for lobbyist, I agree - let's hang them by their nut sacks. That includes anyone who attempt to contact their Congresscritter or Senator because all lobbying is bad for the nation. While we are at it, are there any other Constitutional protections that you would like to suspend?
The real reason why healthcare is expensive is because the govt has instituted price controls. Entities such as Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance mandates are basically forms of price controls aimed at specific (and growing) populations. Economics 101 teaches us that price controls lead to relative scarcity and artificially inflated prices on the remaining protions of the population that is not "protected." The best way to control healthcare prices is to remove price controls and bring consumers into the market with a financial stake (i.e. health savings accounts, catastrophic only coverage, private healthcare exchanges, etc.).
Finally, you need to get it out of your head that government can provide universal coverage to everyone at the same quality that we now enjoy while continuing innovation. It can't be done and Europe is learning that lesson as we speak. I'm not saying that we allow the truly sick to die on the streets. There are plenty of private charities that can deal with this very small proportion of the uninsured/uninsurable. What I am saying is that our government is in no position to take on the responsibility for every citizens healthcare (or shelter, or food, or clothing, etc.) with a national debt of 16T and growing. Are a few people going to die due to lack of coverage - yes. Some people simply suck at life and no about of govt assistance is going to change that. But, this will be a much smaller number than the insidious effects of socialized medicine on complex diseases such as cancer, advanced heart disease, etc.
Raven Armament
07-02-12, 12:24
Tax or fine, what's the difference?
Google is your friend and will answer that for you.
Maybe my question would have been better phrased -
What does it matter if they call it a fine, or tax, or even (legal) theft - the government is still taking your money to spend on someone else.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.