Originally Posted by speedracer That's some weak faux naive sauce right there, dude. *******************NEWSFLASH************* POLITICIANS WILL SOMETIMES CALL TAXES "FEES". THIS IS A LIE AND BAIT AND SWITCH AND FRAUD AND YOU ARE ALL SHEEPLE FOR NOT THROWING OFF YOUR SHACKLES. Wow. I see all the buzzwords: partisanship, activism, economy. I'm not seeing anything in the way of support for your argument. There isn't. Even conservatives thought the day would be won on partisanship. A very tasty quote on the efficacy of the "argument" being put forth by the anti-ACA: That was the solicitor general for Reagan saying that. Whoops.

LMAO!!

I have now changed my mind thanks to your meaty post on the subject. All air and no substance. All I see are your talking points and lack of argument. You have thoroughly convinced me with your enlightened post on the matter. Thank you sir for your expertise...I am now a true believer.

edit: BTW it is a tax or have you not heard or read the decision. BTW Obama said over and over and over it was NOT a TAX.
If that is just a talking point with no substance then you might want to flip through some channels and websites today as it is ALL about it being a TAX. Some people. Further more it was partisan from the get go. BTW it was activism and BTW it does involve the economy and negatively so.

LMAO....some people

Originally Posted by KingBroly Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion. I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this. If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not. But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.

Very well said sir very well said. Bravo

Originally Posted by KingBroly Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion. I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this. If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not. But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.

I don't think you quite understand what exactly is going on. The original case brought against the bill argued that congress didn't have power over health insurance because it violated the commerce clause. Roberts agreed. However where it seems people are getting hung up about is the fact that the law was not pushed as a tax, which is partially true. Congress was trying to save face by steering reporters and people away from thinking it was a tax, however it never affirmed it, and instead affirmed that it was a tax (baucus did this, if I remember the oral arguments correctly). However Roberts reading of the law and his decision were justifiable, and the case for judicial activism is slim at best (you'd have an easier time arguing judicial activism when a judge decides to give a light sentence to an offender). Again read the opinions and the previously released oral arguments, they were quite good.

As for it was written as a tax speak, it was written as a tax. It was however called a penalty by political jockeys to rile up their bases. Not the fault of the law, but merely the fault of pundits. Beyond that the original bill didn't even mention the commerce clause, but it did mention taxes a whole lot.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 edit: BTW it is a tax or have you not heard or read the decision. BTW Obama said over and over and over it was NOT a TAX.

So who do we blame, the fool, or the fool who listens?

If that is just a talking point with no substance then you might want to flip through some channels and websites today as it is ALL about it being a TAX.

WELL LAWDY IF THE CHANNELS AND TUBES SEZ IT.

Where is the fault in Roberts's opinion? Exactly where does his argument fail?

Some people. Further more it was partisan from the get go. BTW it was activism and BTW it does involve the economy and negatively so.

That Roberts, always conspiring with liberals to flip and support them on this issue because of activism and partisanship. Yea, everything about that makes no sense at all.

Sour grapes are sour, huh guy?

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by KingBroly I don't think Obama will lose the election, but I think the slim chances of the Democrats regaining control of the House and a plurality in the Senate just went jumping out the window of a 30-story* building. You're right in that it rallies the Republican base as well as any anti-Obamacare mantra that's out there but would probably remain on the sidelines before this. This just means another 4 years of gridlock. Good thing it starts with a tax increase on January 1st tax cuts sun-setting is the equivalent to a tax cut, deal with it . That'll make things just peachy. I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later. * - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.

They didn't change the bill from the bench. The Feds chief argument was the commerce clause but Scotus said come up with several arguments in case we find 1 unconstitutional. The one found constitutional was the taxation argument. The bill wasn't changed, it wasn't judicial activism.

Originally Posted by KingBroly Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion. I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this. If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not. But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.

Well, cindersphere and IRHari pretty much answered everything. I still find it weird as hell that you somehow think they re-wrote the law when the only thing that the Supremes are allowed to do is determine if any legislation constitutional or not. I'm literally dumbfounded.

My preferred backstory:

I think we're being trolled by Roberts. I think he saw the writing on the wall where the ROBERTS court was about to overturn a signature policy of a president's entire term on shaky at best ground and realized he was about to release the four horsemen of the ing apocalypse if he let that happen on naked party lines.

Roberts saw that he was going to make a state (Montana) bend the knee to the throne of federalism in the name of conservatism and then four days later he was going to make federalism bend the knee to the throne of state rights... in the name of conservatism. It's prolly pretty easy for pliskin101 to contort enough in a blog post to make himself think that makes sense, but the Chief Justice whose name will forever be burnt into the decision probably stopped and thought about it a little.

And then they take the straw poll and Kennedy comes out 100% for repeal and Roberts shits himself. Taxes. That's it. Yea. What the ever.

Originally Posted by speedracer So who do we blame, the fool, or the fool who listens? WELL LAWDY IF THE CHANNELS AND TUBES SEZ IT. Where is the fault in Roberts's opinion? Exactly where does his argument fail? That Roberts, always conspiring with liberals to flip and support them on this issue because of activism and partisanship. Yea, everything about that makes no sense at all. Sour grapes are sour, huh guy?

I blame both those who listened to the LIAR and the LIAR. For clarification I NEVER supported it at all. Those who did and still do are complete morons.

For Robert's read the other posts about it.

Are you telling me that the obamacare plan was not partisan from the get go>? Alrighttty then. We must be living in different parts of the the multiverse.

I am glad you find it all so fun...that the Country is getting screwed and flushed down the toilet. If anyone is the sheeple it is YOU.

The bright side is Romney is promising to repeal it and he will get elected. Yes the lesser of two evils but hey it's what we are stuck with. I will take Romney any day of the week and twice on Tuesday if my only other choce is King Obama.

Originally Posted by IRHari They didn't change the bill from the bench. The Feds chief argument was the commerce clause but Scotus said come up with several arguments in case we find 1 unconstitutional. The one found constitutional was the taxation argument. The bill wasn't changed, it wasn't judicial activism.

Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.

Originally Posted by speedracer My preferred backstory: I think we're being trolled by Roberts. I think he saw the writing on the wall where the ROBERTS court was about to overturn a signature policy of a president's entire term on shaky at best ground and realized he was about to release the four horsemen of the ing apocalypse if he let that happen on naked party lines. Roberts saw that he was going to make a state (Montana) bend the knee to the throne of federalism in the name of conservatism and then four days later he was going to make federalism bend the knee to the throne of state rights... in the name of conservatism. It's prolly pretty easy for pliskin101 to contort enough in a blog post to make himself think that makes sense, but the Chief Justice whose name will forever be burnt into the decision probably stopped and thought about it a little. And then they take the straw poll and Kennedy comes out 100% for repeal and Roberts shits himself. Taxes. That's it. Yea. What the ever.

The way I said it was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better, but the Dean of Columbia Law School just wrote this on SCOTUSblog and totally agrees with me.

The prime winner in all this is the Court. Chief Justice Roberts avoided invalidating major federal legislation decades in the making, while underscoring that Congress’s regulatory power is not unlimited and the Court’s central role in enforcing the Constitution. True, Roberts achieved this result only with some analytic fudging—Justice Ginsburg is right that the Court should not rule on the commerce power if upholding the mandate as a tax, as well as that the commerce power ruling is not consistent with precedent. But from the perspective of the Court, that seems a small price to pay for a decision that preserves its institutional stature and authority. It’s our modern day Marbury v. Madison.

With the eloquence and shit.

Originally Posted by KingBroly Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.

And that's called a Texas Two Step.

i heard taxes are bad is this true thx guys

Originally Posted by KingBroly Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.

And the penalty for not buying insurance was interpreted by the SCOTUS as a tax.

'Cruel and unusual punishment' was the way the 8th Amendment was written, but the SCOTUS has interpreted that as also meaning life without parole for juveniles.

The SCOTUS interprets the law.

Originally Posted by KingBroly Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion. I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this. If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not. But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.

It's funny you or anyone calls it a tax. As I understand it, it's a "tax" on anyone who refuses to get insurance. Well, the majority of the folks in the country have insurance as it is already, those who can't get it for whatever reason will be able to soon, so the number of people who outright refuse to buy insurance is likely to be pretty small, which means that the number of people actually paying this "tax" is likely to be pretty small as well. So you call it a "tax" on the middle class, and that just isn't true.

Well for all those who voted Obama for hope and change that is exactly what you will have left if Obama continues his reckless reign.... Hope and Change.

Originally Posted by Clak It's funny you or anyone calls it a tax. As I understand it, it's a tax on anyone who refuses to get insurance. Well, the majority of the folks in the country have insurance as it is already, those who can't get it for whatever reason will be able to soon, so the number of people who outright refuse to buy insurance is likely to be pretty small, which means that the number of people actually paying this "tax" is likely to be pretty small as well. So you call it a tax on the middle class, and that just isn't true.

Roberts called it a tax. Read the ruling.

Originally Posted by KingBroly Roberts called it a tax. Read the ruling.

And you called it "a tax on the middle class". I ask you to please explain that.

Originally Posted by Clak And you called it "a tax on the middle class". I ask you to please explain that.

Because it is. Even before today people who knew what it was basically knew that it was basically a middle class tax hike. They're the ones who are "penalized" by the ruling, since they are really the ones ripe for fines here, given all of the exclusions and such. You won't find many poor people paying the fine since they can't afford coverage, and are therefore exempt. You won't find many rich people paying the fine since they can afford coverage already. That just leaves the Government screwing over the middle class.

If it was written as a tax in the first place, and not pushed to the Commerce Clause, it wouldn't have passed.

And I'm sure "tax increases" in the future won't be done this way either, no sir.

Originally Posted by Clak And you called it "a tax on the middle class". I ask you to please explain that.

Holy crap!! Not surprising that you have no idea the major negatives of this plan... or even just the basics of obamacare. You just blindly supported it and support it without having a clue of the ramifications of it.

That is the future people clak and the like.

Now you ask people to explain it to you after you already blindly held it up high? What are you "high"? What a sad sad thing. Not surprising though from you. Baby boomers post and all the others. It's never your responsibility AND you just blindly follow like the good puppy you are. Hear your masters calling you....Good boy good boy not get back on your leash.... and quit trying to run with the big dogs when you are still pissing like a puppy.

Pliskin, you really don't have to treat them like that. It's a bit petty and can be interpreted as racist.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 Well for all those who voted Obama for hope and change that is exactly what you will have left if Obama continues his reckless reign.... Hope and Change.

I voted and donated for health care reform. This president delivers.



Doesn't matter. Got my health care bill.