Roberts cast the deciding vote.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Suddenly calling it a tax, and claiming that Obama has created a tax increase is absurd. It was the Supreme Court which labeled it a tax. Regardless, whether it's a "penalty" or a "tax" is semantics and most people realize this. Furthermore, the Act was passed by Congress, so if anyone created anything, they did.

 

So, if the SC says it's Constitutional you agree 100%. If they say it's Constitutional only if it's a tax, not a penalty, you say they are wrong 100%.

 

And you don't want to hold Obama accountable for ObamaTaxCare??????????????? Didn't he sign it?

[Frank M 181]

 

bag of d1cks

 

 

Nice. Succinct, to the point. Fits well.

 

[hoytdwow 202]

So, if the SC says it's Constitutional you agree 100%. If they say it's Constitutional only if it's a tax, not a penalty, you say they are wrong 100%.

 

And you don't want to hold Obama accountable for ObamaTaxCare??????????????? Didn't he sign it?

I didn't say they were wrong fuckstain. I said whether the word "tax" or "penalty" is chosen is merely semantic and irrelevant.

 

I do hold Obama accountable for the Act, and I applaud him for it. I wish it went further. The SC upholding it doesn't mean Obama raised taxes. If you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty. If you have insurance, you don't pay a penalty.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I didn't say they were wrong fuckstain. I said whether the word "tax" or "penalty" is chosen is merely semantic and irrelevant.

 

I do hold Obama accountable for the Act, and I applaud him for it. I wish it went further. The SC upholding it doesn't mean Obama raised taxes. If you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty. If you have insurance, you don't pay a penalty.

 

Well then you are wrong. You should read Robert's opinion, and then Scalia's. If you think it being a "tax" is irrelevant you are dumber than a sack of bolts.

Once again, it's been fun tweaking you guys and watching the contortions you rubes are going thru to deny this is a tax.

[Voltaire 4,564]

I never understood how they can classify one of the judges as the deciding/swing vote. Why not any of the other judges that voted in favor of it? Did Roberts wait till everyone else voted, then dramatically slammed his card on the table.."BLAM B1TCHES!!"

They vote in order of seniority. Roberts would have voted first.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If the bill would have stayed as written, with the mandate being a "penalty" under the "commerce clause" the entire thing was being thrown out. The 4 votes against said this exactly.

 

Robert's changed the "penalty" to "tax" and moved it from the "commerce clause" to put it under the taxing authority of Congress. Dems in Congress, and Obama, specifically argued it was not a tax.

 

Should I post the Snuffaluffagus interview again?

 

 

A SC Justice has no authority to change the entire basis on which a bill was passed. Roberts did just that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Snippets of interest to me, taken from the transcript:

 

And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, .containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

 

☛☛☛☛☛

 

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

 

☛☛☛☛☛

 

What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.

 

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/06/obamacare-scotus-dissent-transcript-scalia-kennedy-thomas-alito-verbal-wizardry/?replytocom=62286

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

If the bill would have stayed as written, with the mandate being a "penalty" under the "commerce clause" the entire thing was being thrown out. The 4 votes against said this exactly.

 

Robert's changed the "penalty" to "tax" and moved it from the "commerce clause" to put it under the taxing authority of Congress. Dems in Congress, and Obama, specifically argued it was not a tax.

 

Should I post the Snuffaluffagus interview again?

 

 

A SC Justice has no authority to change the entire basis on which a bill was passed. Roberts did just that.

 

SC Justice's don't have the authority to interpret whether a bill is constitutional or not...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

SC Justice's don't have the authority to interpret whether a bill is constitutional or not...

Who said that?

[parrot 789]

If the bill would have stayed as written, with the mandate being a "penalty" under the "commerce clause" the entire thing was being thrown out. The 4 votes against said this exactly.

 

Robert's changed the "penalty" to "tax" and moved it from the "commerce clause" to put it under the taxing authority of Congress. Dems in Congress, and Obama, specifically argued it was not a tax.

 

Should I post the Snuffaluffagus interview again?

 

 

A SC Justice has no authority to change the entire basis on which a bill was passed. Roberts did just that.

 

 

Wait...

 

Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron.

 

So the Reps, who said it was a tax from day 1, are now incensed because Roberts correctly called it a tax? It sounds like they want it to be a tax, except when it bites them in the ass.

 

The Reps called it a tax, the government has consistently argued it was a tax in multiple proceedings, and Roberts ruled it was a tax. What exactly did he rewrite? Of course Obama and other Dem pols argued that it wasn't a tax to the public, too much bad PR. Are you honestly suggesting that the SC should be influenced by self-serving political dog and pony shows when determining correct application of the Constitution?

 

The job of the court was to determine if the law is Constitutional or not. I believe they are perfectly justified in looking at the enumerated powers in their entirety in doing so. It's not really their role to worry about "the entire basis on which a bill was passed."

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's not really their role to worry about "the entire basis on which a bill was passed."

Link?

[parrot 789]

Link?

 

Most predictable reply ever. Link to something saying it is their role.

 

Did you feel like that was the only line in that post you could respond to? What about "Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron."? Nothing on that?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Most predictable reply ever. Link to something saying it is their role.

Gotta love it.

 

Your position is that any law before the SC can be ruled Constitutional, or Unconstitutional, based on any enumerated power the legislature has, even if that power has nothing to do with the law as written. And you don't consider this rewriting the law?

 

So the next time the Govt has to argue a case before the SC the attorneys should just say "Hey, I have no idea which part of the Constitution applies here, and I don't want to box myself in on that. I'll let you guys find something in the Constitution that justifies this bill and you can change the wording of the law to fit it".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What about "Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron."? Nothing on that?

They said it. And they were right. However, those who wrote the bill didn't say it, and even denied it. Used the "Commerce clause" as justification, not their authority to tax.

 

Now that it's OK for a SC Justice to change a bill to fit how he wants to vote the particulars of how a bill is written are not that important.

 

If the Dems would have written it as a tax under their authority to tax it would have never even been close to getting passed. If you recall, it took several bribes to get the last Dems to vote in favor of it. Do you really think they would have voted for the bill if the truth of it being a $500 Billion tax increase was how it was sold?

[parrot 789]

Gotta love it.

 

Your position is that any law before the SC can be ruled Constitutional, or Unconstitutional, based on any enumerated power the legislature has, even if that power has nothing to do with the law as written. And you don't consider this rewriting the law?

 

So the next time the Govt has to argue a case before the SC the attorneys should just say "Hey, I have no idea which part of the Constitution applies here, and I don't want to box myself in on that. I'll let you guys find something in the Constitution that justifies this bill and you can change the wording of the law to fit it".

 

Yeah, that's a crazy thought process - that if something falls under an enumerated power of the Constitution then it should be found Constitutional - all right. We sure wouldn't want the justices seeking to correctly apply the law when there are political games to be played.

 

I like too how you keep pretending that the tax argument was something Roberts pulled out of his ass. It wasn't, it was part of the government's argument all along.

 

The Justice Department, however, argued that the mandate was a tax from the outset. They knew that what politicians said made no difference to the actual constitutional issues.

 

link

 

Even for you, this is some SERIOUS casting at shadows.

[MDC 5,895]

I'd pay a tax to watch RP cry all day long.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yeah, that's a crazy thought process - that if something falls under an enumerated power of the Constitution then it should be found Constitutional - all right. We sure wouldn't want the justices seeking to correctly apply the law when there are political games to be played.

Once again, they are suppose to rule on the law AS WRITTEN.

 

I think Scalia is a little more knowledgeable than you, and he clearly states Roberts rewrote the law to fit how he wanted to vote. What you "believe they are justified" in doing has no bearing on reality.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'd pay a tax to watch RP cry biotchslap the bored libturds all day long.

Stick around.

[MDC 5,895]

Stick around.

 

If by b1tchslapping the libturds you really mean "Making a full-retard drooling ass javelin out of myself," you sir are correct!

[parrot 789]

Once again, they are suppose to rule on the law AS WRITTEN.

 

I think Scalia is a little more knowledgeable than you, and he clearly states Roberts rewrote the law to fit how he wanted to vote. What you "believe they are justified" in doing has no bearing on reality.

 

Ah, argument from authority, well-played. Can I get a link to where Scalia said Roberts rewrote the law?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ah, argument from authority, well-played. Can I get a link to where Scalia said Roberts rewrote the law?

Already provided in post #47, Moron.

[parrot 789]

Already provided in post #47, Moron.

 

Missed it. Sorry. You stay classy RP.

[DanXIII 8]

It's going to be a sad day when RP finally does become self-aware. I just hope I'm not driving beneath that bridge when that day comes.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Missed it. Sorry. You stay classy RP.

Are you telling me to stay classy cuz I called you a moron?

[parrot 789]

Are you telling me to stay classy cuz I called you a moron?

 

Ya think?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Most predictable reply ever. Link to something saying it is their role.

 

Did you feel like that was the only line in that post you could respond to? What about "Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron."? Nothing on that?

Stay classy, Parrot.

[parrot 789]

Stay classy, Parrot.

 

Uh, that was me quoting you from another thread.

 

Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron.

[shovelheadt 62]

Ingredients

 

1 cup chicken broth

2 medium slices onion

2 tablespoons butter

2 tablespoons all-purpose flour

2 cups milk

1/2 teaspoon salt

1 pound cooked and cubed lobster meat

1/2 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce

1 pinch ground cayenne pepper

 

Directions

 

In a small frying pan place 1/4 cup chicken broth and the onion. Cook over a low heat for 5 to 7 minutes.

In a medium size pot over medium heat melt the butter. Slowly whisk in flour. Whisk until a creamy mixture is created.

Gradually pour in broth, whisking constantly. Whisk in milk, salt, onion, lobster meat, Worcestershire sauce and cayenne pepper. Heat until soup is almost boiling. Do not boil the soup as the milk will curdle when boiled.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Uh, that was me quoting you from another thread.

 

Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron.

 

HFS...prepare for some spin upcoming.

Or just the usual completely ignore all things like this (only to then whine about my reply here).

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Uh, that was me quoting you from another thread.

 

Reps said it was a tax from Day 1, Moron.

Cool.

 

Now grow a pair, Moron.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

If the bill would have stayed as written, with the mandate being a "penalty" under the "commerce clause" the entire thing was being thrown out. The 4 votes against said this exactly.

 

Robert's changed the "penalty" to "tax" and moved it from the "commerce clause" to put it under the taxing authority of Congress. Dems in Congress, and Obama, specifically argued it was not a tax.

 

Should I post the Snuffaluffagus interview again?

 

 

A SC Justice has no authority to change the entire basis on which a bill was passed. Roberts did just that.

 

I'm not surprised you have no idea how statutory construction works.

 

The policy is that the judicial branch should not strike down a duly enacted lae if it can avoid doing so. That's because laws are passed through the people's elected representatives. If the courts struck down laws whenever they felt like it, that would be ruling by judicial fiat.

 

The rule stemming from that policy is that if a statute is susceptible to differing interpretations, and one of those interpretations would be constitutionally permissible while others would not, then the court must accept the interpretation that would allow the law to stand.

 

So no, Roberts did not rewrite the law. He selected the interpretation that would allow him to honor the will of the peoples' elected representatives.

 

As a supposed conservative, I really don't see how you could have a problem with that.

[jerryskids 5,209]

I'm not surprised you have no idea how statutory construction works.

 

The policy is that the judicial branch should not strike down a duly enacted lae if it can avoid doing so. That's because laws are passed through the people's elected representatives. If the courts struck down laws whenever they felt like it, that would be ruling by judicial fiat.

 

The rule stemming from that policy is that if a statute is susceptible to differing interpretations, and one of those interpretations would be constitutionally permissible while others would not, then the court must accept the interpretation that would allow the law to stand.

 

So no, Roberts did not rewrite the law. He selected the interpretation that would allow him to honor the will of the peoples' elected representatives.

 

As a supposed conservative, I really don't see how you could have a problem with that.

The will of the peoples' representatives was to NOT allow sever ability, yet they did just that with the Medicaid ruling.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

The will of the peoples' representatives was to NOT allow sever ability, yet they did just that with the Medicaid ruling.

 

There's a lot that goes into the severability analysis. Whether Congress expressed a belief on severability is relevant but not wholly determinative. The Medicaid part was not a vital piece of the legislation (whereas the individual mandate was), therefore you could sever that part without completely undoing thr people's will.

 

For the record, I think they got the Medicaid part wrong. The federal government has always been allowed to attach conditions to money they give to the states. And why shouldn't they? If the states don't want to follow the policy, then they are free to pass up the funding.

 

Hell, the only reason we have national speed limits and uniform DUI laws is that the federal government made accepting highway funds conditional on those measures. Are we gonna undo that now?

[Little Rusty 17]

Roberts was either bribed, threatened or a flat out pussie.

 

Unless of course we've been living under a shadow government that plays America like a fiddle all the way to hell.

[parrot 789]

Once again, they are suppose to rule on the law AS WRITTEN.

 

 

Exactly, so why are you whining repeatedly that what Obama or others had to SAY about it should have somehow had some impact?

 

Dems in Congress, and Obama, specifically argued it was not a tax.

Should I post the Snuffaluffagus interview again?

 

If the SC is going to disallow every law about which some politician says something inaccurate or misleading, we ain't going to have very many laws.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not surprised you have no idea how statutory construction works.

 

The policy is that the judicial branch should not strike down a duly enacted lae if it can avoid doing so. That's because laws are passed through the people's elected representatives. If the courts struck down laws whenever they felt like it, that would be ruling by judicial fiat.

 

The rule stemming from that policy is that if a statute is susceptible to differing interpretations, and one of those interpretations would be constitutionally permissible while others would not, then the court must accept the interpretation that would allow the law to stand.

 

So no, Roberts did not rewrite the law. He selected the interpretation that would allow him to honor the will of the peoples' elected representatives.

 

As a supposed conservative, I really don't see how you could have a problem with that.

I'll put the expertise of Scalia above that of a pretend lawyer from Alaska anyday, and 10 times on Thursday.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Exactly, so why are you whining repeatedly that what Obama or others had to SAY about it should have somehow had some impact?

 

 

 

If the SC is going to disallow every law about which some politician says something inaccurate or misleading, we ain't going to have very many laws.

Wow. You are really dumb.

 

The law was WRITTEN under the Commerce Clause and said it was not a tax. Obama and his clowns saying it for months is just icing on the cake.

 

The SC is suppose to rule on the law as written, as you just agreed to, and not changed at the whim of one Justice so he can justify his vote.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Once again, they are suppose to rule on the law AS WRITTEN.

I think Scalia is a little more knowledgeable than you, and he clearly states Roberts rewrote the law to fit how he wanted to vote. What you "believe they are justified" in doing has no bearing on reality.

 

 

I'll put the expertise of Scalia above that of a pretend lawyer from Alaska anyday, and 10 times on Thursday.

 

 

Wow. You are really dumb.

 

The law was WRITTEN under the Commerce Clause and said it was not a tax. Obama and his clowns saying it for months is just icing on the cake.

 

The SC is suppose to rule on the law as written, as you just agreed to, and not changed at the whim of one Justice so he can justify his vote.

 

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that even he did not find the tax argument especially plausible. But he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid," Justice Holmes wrote, "our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."

Seems there is precedent, so I'll go with what a justice wrote over "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express" geek board lawyer.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Seems there is precedent, so I'll go with what a justice wrote over "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express" geek board lawyer.

Why no link?

[Little Rusty 17]