[ATOMIC_PUNK]

So he's a Conservative-Republican-Liberal-Democrat ?

[italianquaker]

The title is wrong Romney didnt say that

[Thane_Banquo]

He’s right. The idea that it’s a tax was a contrived fiction by Roberts in order to excuse himself for being a coward who bowed to PC thugs. It’s a penalty, and therefore the entire bill is unconstitutional.

[formosa]

MITT ROMNEY: For use when lying and looting aren’t quite enough to bring conservatives into the fold. He’s got a face for everyone to cherish.

[Huskrrrr]

Here we go...GOP candidate blows another election.

[Tulane]

Romney’s point being...the reason for upholding the law as a tax is invalid.

Nice headline by the media...It could also have read: Romney, Scalia, Alito, etc. agree it is not a tax...

[Izzy Dunne]

He is correct, though it doesn’t fit with the plan.

It’s a penalty. Scalia, et al, knew it. Romney knows it.

[Perdogg]

This is more pro-0bamatard spin.

[pallis]

Yeah, well, Romney can stuff it. Go Obama!

That will teach them.

[Tex-Con-Man]

I'm getting a headache.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Where in the constitution does it say the government has the right to penalize one for NOT spending money on something they DON’T want?

[drypowder]

time to start a WRITE IN campaign for president; “PALIN”!!!

[BarnacleCenturion]

You obviously don’t get it.

Romney, Scalia, Thomas and Alito say it’s not a tax, but a mandate.

Roberts and the libs in the court made up this crap about it being a tax so they could uphold it.

Whose side are you on?

[NoLibZone]

False MSM meme.

The DNC makes no distinction between money they seize and money you save for a rainy day.

Romney said in 2009 that those that want to buy insurance can, those that don’t will have to put aside enough to cover their costs, there will be no free rides.

That illustrates the entire philosophical difference between liberalism and conservatism.

[NoLibZone]

He’s a conservative.

We feel we should save for rainy days.

Liberals feel the govt should seize your funds for rainy days.

[Steamburg]

No surprise that the source is the Hill. If we would spend less time taking the bait from every liblizard who tries to divide us; we might have time to recall that unless Obama goes the next decision won’t be even 5 to 4.

It’s highly doubtful that the Republican establishment will ever be bright enough to appoint someone who actually is a conservative, but at least they probably won’t appoint Justice Holder or Justice Ayers...

[NoLibZone]

He’s a conservative.

We feel we should save for rainy days.

Liberals feel the govt should seize your funds for rainy days.

[dead]

Hours after the decision was announced, Romney stated he agreed with the minority opinion in the case, signed by Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy.

Almost every conservative in the country also claims to agree with that dissenting opinion.

The minority opinion clearly states that the conservative justices do not agree that the penalty is a tax. Here is the relevant section:

Against the mountain of evidence that the minimum coverage requirement is what the statute calls it—a requirement—and that the penalty for its violation is what the statute calls it—a penalty—the Government brings forward the flimsiest of indications to the contrary. It notes that “[t]he minimum coverage provision amends theInternal Revenue Code to provide that a non-exempted individual . . . will owe a monetary penalty, in addition to the income tax itself,” and that “[t]he [Internal RevenueService (IRS)] will assess and collect the penalty in the same manner as assessable penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The manner of collection could perhaps suggest a tax if IRS penalty-collection were unheard-of or rare. It is not.

The last of the feeble arguments in favor of petitioners that we will address is the contention that what this statute repeatedly calls a penalty is in fact a tax because it contains no scienter requirement. The presence of such a requirement suggests a penalty—though one can imagine a tax imposed only on willful action; but the absence of such a requirement does not suggest a tax. Penalties for absolute-liability offenses are commonplace. And where a statute is silent as to scienter, we traditionally presume a mens rea requirement if the statute imposes a “severe penalty.” Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 618 (1994). Since we have an entire jurisprudence addressing when it is that a scienter requirement should be inferred from a penalty, it is quite illogical to suggest that a penalty is not a penalty for want of an express scienter requirement.

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. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Actof 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives.

Obama wants to claim he agrees with the decision that declared it constitutional because it is a tax, while simultaneously insisting it is not a tax.

You can't simultaneously hold the position that the decision was both right and wrong on whether the penalty is a tax. Obama is trying to get away with that logical absurdity. Romney is not.

[nathanbedford]

Only Chief Justice Roberts has flip-flopped on calling this penalty a tax more often than has the Commander-In-Chief, Barack Obama.

For Roberts, it is not a tax for the purposes of ripeness but it is a tax for the purposes of constitutional review. Actually Obama did him one better, telling the world and Congress before passage that it was not a tax, sending His Solicitor General to tell the Supreme Court that it was a tax, and now maintaining once again that is not a tax.

Obviously MSNBC is trying to catch out the Romney campaign in an effort to diffuse a potent issue for the Republicans, the braking by Obama on this promise not to impose any new taxes on the middle class. If the Democrats can now upgrade the idea that Romney himself believes that it is not a tax it will be difficult for the Republicans to exploit the issue.

Unless the Republicans draw clear distinctions they will see a nice issue obfuscated. They should abandon this word game in an attempt to exploit the sophistry of Chief Justice Roberts or they are liable to find themselves flip-flopping as often as Roberts and Obama.

In reality the mandate penalty is just that, a penalty and not a tax, of that I personally have no doubt. Romney is correct in maintaining that it is penalty and it is a position consistent with the universally held belief among conservatives that the law is unconstitutional. Put another way, if one accepts that enforcement of the mandate is by way of a tax and not a penalty, the law is constitutional. Therefore, intellectual consistency requires conservatives to maintain that this is a penalty and not a tax.

But intellectual honesty also requires Democrats to concede that if the law is constitutional the extraction of payment in violation of the mandate is a tax. If it is not a tax, Obama care is not constitutional by the vote of five Justices.

However, Republicans can and should draw a distinction between these sums to be paid by a minority of individuals as a penalty for violating the mandate and the mountain of taxes and debts imposed upon the United States taxpayers by this massive new law. There are several taxes within this bill, such as on medical devices, tanning beds, etc. which are in fact taxes and which do in fact affect the middle class. Moreover, the opposition to the law comes from the fact that its extravagance and mismanagement will simply add trillions to the taxpayer's burdens.

Let the Democrats defend the bill on its extravagance and we will win the day just as we have won the public relations battle on this issue to date.

[Godzilla]

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign broke with congressional Republicans on Monday by arguing that the individual mandate upheld by the Supreme Court last week is a penalty, not a tax.

[dragnet2]

It’s a penalty, it’s a plan, an insurance fee, it’s a toll, it’s a tax, it’s a levy, an assessment, an obligation, a fine, it’s a tariff, a commission, an expense, an imposition..

Good grief!