Triumph is not an acceptable term for an occasion on which the branch of government entrusted with deciding these issues comes to the conclusion that something as unconstitutional as the ACA is constitutional.
So they finally decided that there are limits to a clause which has already been stretched so far beyond the limits envisioned by the founders as to be unrecognisable by any reasonable standard of original intent?
Explain to me again how this is a “triumph”?
The court effectively permitting the legislature to exceed the limits placed upon it by the commerce clause it can do whatever it pleases as long as it calls it a tax is a “triumph”?
What’s with all these pundits who are determined to find a silver lining, no matter how faint, to this cloud anyway? Its like some sort of political Stockholm Syndrome..
Roberts opined that this is not an issue to be decided by government but by the people.
The SC has abdicated responsibility for determining the constitutionality of this highly politicized issue. Reminiscent of the Dred Scott opinion. That benighted ruling led to a Civil War. Will this one fare any better?
Lawyers lying. What a surprise.
If I argued vehemently to you on a bright sunny day that the sky was red, and gave all sorts of conclusions, would you argue with me - or just point to the blue sky overhead?
Likewise, I see no analysis in thi article of the actual ruling by Roberts. Gee, I wonder why - maybe it could it be this:
In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:
The penalty provided by this section ... shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips - he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be ... assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. ...any reference in this title to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: "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."
Let's see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes" after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) - which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes."
Wow, that's a radical ruling.
And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say "use that."
So why weren't Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?
People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is "legislating from the bench" when he simply repeats back pre-existing tax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple - no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been "destroyed." Yet they're ready to fight a "revolution" over it!
A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won't read?