The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You jest, but I would go along with that plan. Young people who show up in the ER with no insurance = no care. Elderly people who would only have weeks or months of lousy quality life added by ridiculously expensive treatments = no care.

Thankfully, the rest of the civilized world doesn't subscribe to that particular libertarian philosophy.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Interesting insights from Krauthammer. I guess the pressure Obama and the Dems put on Roberts over the past months paid off, convincing him that for the sake of the Supreme Court's legacy (at least with liberals), he just couldn't overturn in no matter how much he had problems with it. Unfortunate that a Chief Justice has to skate around the issue the way he did, but such is the state of how things are done in our nation. You'd never see a liberal chief justice do such a thing.

Comeon Bob, I know you feel the need to justify Robert's decision, but seriously? First you call him the next Souter. Now he was blackmailed by Obama? It couldn't be he issued a legally conservative opinion that abided by the judicial principle of "if a statute can be constitutionally construed, courts are bound to construe it in that manner?"

For god's sake, it's the same principle we saw just 3 days ago when the Court upheld the "show me your papers" provision of the Arizona law.

I really have mixed feelings about this. In a practical sense, I think it represents some progress toward sorting out the mire that is health care in the USA, but the consistent expansion of federal powers is not something I'm a huge fan of.

I saw a comparison earlier today which struck a chord with me. How is this any different in execution than forcing me to pay higher taxes because I don't have kids?

If we called it the "thanks for not being a free rider" tax credit (ala the child care tax credit) instead of a "penalty" (or tax) for being a free rider, would people still be *****ing about this being a huge expansion of government power?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Comeon Bob, I know you feel the need to justify Robert's decision, but seriously? First you call him the next Souter. Now he was blackmailed by Obama? It couldn't be he issued a legally conservative opinion that abided by the judicial principle of "if a statute can be constitutionally construed, courts are bound to construe it in that manner?"

For god's sake, it's the same principle we saw just 3 days ago when the Court upheld the "show me your papers" provision of the Arizona law.

Jan Brewer was holding his wife and kids at gunpoint....

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Jan Brewer was holding his wife and kids at gunpoint....

The best part is no one can use the whole "activist judge" spiel without impugning someone on their side of the aisle. If it had been the liberals + Kennedy or the conservatives + Kennedy, we'd be hearing that non-stop. But with Roberts as the decisive vote, the original spin playbook no longer works.

I think these might get the award for worst tweets of the day by an elected official; from State Rep. Kent Sorenson in Iowa:
"Our supreme court chose to walk and urinate on our constitutional freedoms today. It is time to control-alt-delete the judicial system.”
“Unfortunately I am not confident that there is enough testicular fortitude in the US Congress to stand up to the black robe masters.”

Sad part is, knowing his district, he'll get re-elected in a landslide this fall.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

...I saw a comparison earlier today which struck a chord with me. How is this any different in execution than forcing me to pay higher taxes because I don't have kids?

If we called it the "thanks for not being a free rider" tax credit (ala the child care tax credit) instead of a "penalty" (or tax) for being a free rider, would people still be *****ing about this being a huge expansion of government power?

But this "tax" compels me to comply with the ACA. The taxes/credits you cite give me a credit for doing something, not refusing to comply with a law. This one is a penalty for not participating. IMO, this is a first.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Interesting insights from Krauthammer. I guess the pressure Obama and the Dems put on Roberts over the past months paid off, convincing him that for the sake of the Supreme Court's legacy (at least with liberals), he just couldn't overturn in no matter how much he had problems with it. Unfortunate that a Chief Justice has to skate around the issue the way he did, but such is the state of how things are done in our nation. You'd never see a liberal chief justice do such a thing.

Nobody listens to Krauthammer. Nobody.

I think these might get the award for worst tweets of the day by an elected official; from State Rep. Kent Sorenson in Iowa:
"Our supreme court chose to walk and urinate on our constitutional freedoms today. It is time to control-alt-delete the judicial system.”

Have to laugh...the guy's solution to 'attacks on the constitution' is to totally rip up the constitution. Nobody positions themselves as extremist better than the far right.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

But this "tax" compels me to comply with the ACA. The taxes/credits you cite give me a credit for doing something, not refusing to comply with a law. This one is a penalty for not participating. IMO, this is a first.

Farm subsidies for not growing food. Money for nothing, chicks for free.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Farm subsidies for not growing food. Money for nothing, chicks for free.

Again, where has the Congress ever implemented a tax for failure to comply with a law?? A fine and/or imprisonment, yes, but never to my knowledge a tax.

It's a fee nothing, fee nothing, fee nothing more....
On Thursday night, you'll find him where you want him.
Far from the crowds on the 18th at Congressional...

Well done Roberts. Good old Roberts

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Again, where has the Congress ever implemented a tax for failure to comply with a law?? A fine and/or imprisonment, yes, but never to my knowledge a tax.

You're clearly confusing "hasn't been done before" with "unconstitutional" If we can reward people for doing nothing, why not punish them for choosing to do something that costs everyone else?

And if it's such an awful idea, why did **** near every Republican support it up until 2007-08 as a sign of "holding people personally accountable."

"Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.

An "individual mandate should be applied when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

- New Gingrinch June 2007


"The idea for a health care plan [in Massachusetts] was not mine alone," Romney explained. "The Heritage Foundation - a great conservative think tank - helped on that.
I'm told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago":

ROMNEY: It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We'll help people who can't care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills.

Seriously, half the country is upset because a black man stole their idea.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Again, where has the Congress ever implemented a tax for failure to comply with a law?? A fine and/or imprisonment, yes, but never to my knowledge a tax.

Lame semantics arguments for everyone!

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

This has plenty of precedence. I'm effectively taxed for not participating in marriage. This ruling makes perfect sense (even if I don't agree 100% with the law).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Again, where has the Congress ever implemented a tax for failure to comply with a law?? A fine and/or imprisonment, yes, but never to my knowledge a tax.

From what I have read, Roberts' own decision says it isn't a tax for statutory purposes but it is for Constitutional purposes. Now, just between you and me, I have no idea how that can be true, but it does mean that it isn't a tax in the way you have characterized it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Seriously, half the country is upset because a black man stole their idea.

Turnabout is fair play.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

But this "tax" compels me to comply with the ACA. The taxes/credits you cite give me a credit for doing something, not refusing to comply with a law. This one is a penalty for not participating. IMO, this is a first.

The child care tax credit can easily be seen as a tax on childless couples. So again, is it purely the semantics? If this were a "you're not a free rider" tax credit for people with insurance rather than a tax penalty for those without insurance, you'd be fine with it?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

From what I have read, Roberts' own decision says it isn't a tax for statutory purposes but it is for Constitutional purposes. Now, just between you and me, I have no idea how that can be true, but it does mean that it isn't a tax in the way you have characterized it.

SCOTUSblog has a nice post which tries to make the distinction.

Essentially, when interpreting a statute, Congress can set its own definitions if it wishes (amazingly, legislatures often refuse to do this because they don't want to be pinned to such definitions, then yell at the judiciary for interpreting it differently in the absence of a definition). If it says "wearing red on Tuesdays" is a tax, then that's a tax for purposes of that statute.
However, when interpreting the constitution, a tax is a tax regardless of what it's called by statute.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Brilliant.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

SCOTUSblog has a nice post which tries to make the distinction.

Essentially, when interpreting a statute, Congress can set its own definitions. If it says "wearing red on Tuesdays" is a tax, then that's a tax for purposes of that statute.
However, when interpreting the constitution, a tax is a tax regardless of what it's called by statute.

In other words there are probably a whole bunch of other "taxes" floating around out there, with the leg having called them "the Motherhood and Apple Pie Act."

But let me ask another question, then. If the majority said the Congress has the power to tax, that's still just a funding mechanism. How does that clear a Constitutional test of whether there is also the power to impose a tax for this purpose, since the Commerce Clause didn't get a majority?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I saw the same question in several posts, so not quoting, sorry:

the question was, how did Roberts justify the "penalty" as a tax?

he equated it to so-called "sin" taxes*...like taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. he said somewhere in his opinion that half the price of a pack of cigarettes is made up of taxes.







*hmm, syntax pun somewhere

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Brilliant.

Wow. That is fantastic. Can a photoshop get a Pulitzer?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

In other words there are probably a whole bunch of other "taxes" floating around out there, with the leg having called them "the Motherhood and Apple Pie Act."

But let me ask another question, then. If the majority said the Congress has the power to tax, that's still just a funding mechanism. How does that clear a Constitutional test of whether there is also the power to impose a tax for this purpose, since the Commerce Clause didn't get a majority?

The power to tax is a wholly separate clause from the power to regulate interstate commerce. In theory, the government can impose a tax on anything, so long as it meets the few requirements listed in the constitution.