Report: GOP appeals DOMA case to the Supreme Court

politico44 ^ | 6/29/12 | DONOVAN SLACK

[ColdOne]

The Washington Blade's Chris Johnson reports:

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) attorneys on Friday formally appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court an appeals court decision determining the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, according to a Democratic aide.

Drew Hammill, spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told the Washington Blade on Friday afternoon that House Republicans had notified Democratic leadership counsel filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

[trebb]

Roberts will ensure that it becomes “right and proper taxation” to force people to become homosexuals...

[fwdude]

When would this case likely be heard if accepted?

They were talking about October 2012 at the soonest, when the next court session begins. My realistic guess is that it will more likely be later in 2013.

[Kaosinla]

Roberts is all ready a “gay rights” activist....any bets on how he’ll rule???

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05roberts.html?pagewanted=all

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-03-03/law_review/29985692_1_gay-couples-marriage-licenses-opponents-of-gay-marriage

[free me]

Take note here, the Roberts court did NOT say that this ObamaTax was constitutional
____________________________________________________________

Yes they absolutely did.

[LibLieSlayer]

Why... so the 5 communist jurists can make the 4 Conservative jurists and themselves look like losers again?

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

As long as roberts sits on the bench, his two illegal alien children will be at risk and he will do whatever he is told to do... either that or he is so incompetent as to be a legal imbecil.

LLS

[Hoodat]

I beg to differ. They ruled that the power to tax was constitutional, but they issued no ruling on the application of this tax, nor can they until after the tax takes effect.

There is some ruling that was issued shortly after the War of Northern Aggression that set precedent that a tax cannot be challenged until after it takes effect. Besides, no argument was offered against ObamaTax as a tax. Once the tax takes effect, then and only then can it be challenged. And it will be. And Roberts will rule accordingly. Just on equal protection alone, ObamaTax will be tossed. You may not see it now, but a lot of good is going to come from this.

[free me]

Again, you are completely wrong Hoodat.

Read the opinion yourself.

Roberts ruled that the “mandate” was allowed by the constitution because it was a tax, not a penalty.

If you had read the opinion or any intelligent analyses of the opinion you would already know that Roberts dealt with the question of “Once the tax takes effect, then and only then can it be challenged.” by declaring the mandate a “penalty”

He subsequently, in the same opinion, ruled it a tax.

If this sounds convoluted to you it’s only because it is.

[free me]

Here is an article that may help explain this for you:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900999/posts

Here he addresses the “anti-injuction act’ you referred to:

Roberts first examines the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits Americans from bringing suit against Obamacare at this time.

“The Anti-Injunction Act provides that ‘no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed,’” Roberts explains.

“Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit,” says Roberts.

“The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise,” Roberts continues. “The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits ‘for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’ Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’

“Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ‘taxes,’” said Roberts.

Roberts thus concludes that because Congress calls the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate a “penalty” not a “tax,” the “penalty” therefore is not a “tax.”

[Hoodat]

That’s just plain whack. Looks like it will be up to us then. Time to grab a pitchfork and visit my Congressman and Senators.

[free me]

Yes, I have my pitchfork at the ready!

[longtermmemmory]

Roberts will apply the “ostrich rule” IOW stick his head in the sand and call it “policy”.