Roberts Clarifies: Mandate is a Tax...Not a Penalty [For Campaign Purposes]

ATR ^ | 2012-07-26 | Justin Sykes

[92nina]

10 points made by the Chief Justice clarifying why the individual mandate is a tax...and not a penalty. [Am not saying anything Justice Roberts says has value, but Obama does supposedly uphold the decision, so it's a political consideration.]

[nickcarraway]

Roberts knows Obama does not have to go by his language. It’s a penalty. It was only a tax for the purpose of the decision. Now it’s a penalty again, which it always was. And Roberts knows that.

[chris37]

I’ve heard enough out of you, Mr. Roberts.

Shut up.

[dfwgator]

Roberts, you voted with Kagan, Sotormayor, Ginsburg and Breyer....so it really doesn’t matter what the hell you think.

[92nina]

I hear you, and it makes me feel torn about it. Then again, even if the GOP doesn’t have 60 seats in the Senate in Jan. 2013, so long as they also have the House, they can use Reconciliation to get rid of the Individual Mandate, as the taxing power covers it, according to Roberts. (Of course they need a president who opposes Obamacare to sign it.)

[NotTallTex]

I agree. Roberts betrayed his own judicial philosophy by allowing the lawyers a multiple choice answer. The fact will always remain that the law was NOT passed as a tax. His name is mud.

[poobear]

It is an effing tax, period. If you don’t pay a tax THEN you get a penalty. What?!

[philman_36]

The fact will always remain that the law was NOT passed as a tax.
Would you like to be shown that it was presented as well as passed as a tax?

@ S. 1796 [Report No. 111–89]

Mr. BAUCUS, from the Committee on Finance reported the following original bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar Snip Subtitle D—Shared Responsibility
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 1301. Excise tax on individuals without essential health benefits coverage.

If it was presented as a tax wouldn't it be passed as a tax as well?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about
or do you believe you know what you're talking about?

[philman_36]

Ping to reply #8.

[philman_36]

Belated KUDOS to the owner of this website for an excellent gathering of info.

Legislative History on the Tax Issue, A Compilation of Selected Sources

[xzins]

Sorry, Robbie, but if I’m taxed because I DON’T own a picture of Obama, then I’m being penalized.

If I’m not taxed because I do own a picture of Obama, then I’m not being penalized.

Try to explain it away all you want, but the obvious is still the obvious.

[nickcarraway]

I doubt the GOP would overturn it if they had 65 Senators.

[Clock King]

It’s a tax on being alive. Period.

[LibLieSlayer]

**** roberts... he is just a white version of a kenyan communist.

LLS

[92nina]

I appreciate you showing us this resource, it is useful, so thank you, and thanks to the original compiler. All in all, lots of unsurprising double-talk by Democrats on the definition of the Individual Mandate.

[philman_36]

Just more proof that when it’s said that “everyone knows that ‘such and such’ is ‘so and so’” isn’t always ‘so and so’ and that what “everyone knows” often isn’t what actually is.

[NotTallTex]

I am not talking about how it was presented, I am talking about how it was passed by Congress. With all the difficulty of it being passed as a penalty, do you actually think it would have passed had it been passed, by Congress, as a tax? Roberts allowed it to be “presented” in a different manner than which it was passed. All the Democrats, including Obama, insisted it was NOT a tax!

[philman_36]

With all the difficulty of it being passed as a penalty, do you actually think it would have passed had it been passed, by Congress, as a tax?
You don't seem to grasp that it was passed as a tax by Congress. Changing the words from "excise tax" to "penalty" doesn't change anything. Read the debates.

All the Democrats, including Obama, insisted it was NOT a tax!
THEY LIED! They lied straight to your face smiling all the while. Don't you get it?!

[philman_36]

Roberts allowed it to be “presented” in a different manner than which it was passed.
A Judge can't change how a Respondent presents their argument. The Judge can only ask the Respondent to clarify their argument.

@Supreme Court: The Health Care Law And The Individual Mandate

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think that that's a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the — December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called to, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition.

The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.

It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's — not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

Here's another reply of mine with link to an article with some more info showing that it was always a tax...It Was Always a Tax

The brief that administration lawyers filed on behalf of President Obama argued at length that the mandate is a tax.

[NotTallTex]

Well, from what I have read of the first day’s oral arguments, it was argued as a penalty. When that wouldn’t fly, Roberts allowed a secondary argument presented as a tax. You are right, we were lied to by everyone. The good side is that now, even after Pelosi and Obama and others denying it was a tax, it can now be easier to overturn. But who knows what else is hidden in the document which is equal in size to several War and Peaces.