Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Suit: Roberts' ruling a poison pill for Obamacare
WorldNetDaily ^ | Sep 14 2012 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 09/15/2012 5:03:15 PM PDT by WilliamIII

he penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.

But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.

The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.

“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.

When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.

The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.

“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/15/2012 5:03:17 PM PDT by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

They find a way to wiggle out of this too. The only way to effect this change is at the ballot box. The mealy mouthed “Moderates/Liberals on the SCOTUS won’t ever let it happen.


2 posted on 09/15/2012 5:06:39 PM PDT by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

The only way to effect this change is at the ballot box.

Really? Which politicians, if elected, are going to repeal Obamacare? Please give me their names.


3 posted on 09/15/2012 5:11:59 PM PDT by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

“They find a way to wiggle out of this too.”

No. It is either legally legislated or not. The answer is not. Roberts is neither stupid or liberal. It was a ruling that needed another ruling and he knew it. Just my opinion. There is nothing but a legal opinion required here. Whether it gets kicked down the stairs or not will be up to the legislative branch...they levy taxes. This is a tax. Which is what a conservative would believe.


4 posted on 09/15/2012 5:20:23 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Paul Ryan

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-usa-campaign-ryan-healthcare-idUSBRE88D1N320120914


5 posted on 09/15/2012 5:25:52 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Yup. I don’t hear anyone talking about repealing Obamacare.

Spineless. Gutless. Dare I say how the German parliament became irrelevant.


6 posted on 09/15/2012 5:26:39 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

That point has been made here at FR at least 1000 times. All bills of revenue MUST originate in the House.


7 posted on 09/15/2012 5:28:17 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.

I swear.....I could pick 9 people at random from the phone book and probably get more common sense and wisdom than the Drama Queens in Black Robes.

For all their "legal brilliance" - these clowns cannot (for the life of them) seem to follow a straight forward 6 page document.


8 posted on 09/15/2012 5:33:39 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Roberst is not ignorant nor is he stupid, I think that he was asked to rule on a very narrow group of questions and for some reason, no one thought to ask if the whole thing was unconstitutionally passed.


9 posted on 09/15/2012 5:35:25 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Hope Justice John Roberts doesn’t do ua any more favors.


10 posted on 09/15/2012 5:36:47 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I agree. He basically said they COULD do this if they do it under the taxing power.

But it’s simply not written that way, and the very first person that gets dinged will have standing to challenge it.


11 posted on 09/15/2012 5:39:47 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

See post 5


12 posted on 09/15/2012 5:40:45 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles
The only way to effect this change is at the ballot box.

It won't get fixed there. President Romney will not have the will or the leadership to drive it home. The SCOTUS decision was the most important event of 2012 (not the upcoming election) and we lost. I hope this challenge gains momentum. If the mandate is a tax, and the mandate was added in in The Senate, then it should be illegal because The Senate does not have the power to draft tax bills. It's a long shot. But it's worth a try.

13 posted on 09/15/2012 5:44:43 PM PDT by outofstyle (Down All the Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djf

“But it’s simply not written that way, and the very first person that gets dinged will have standing to challenge it.”

Exactly. It COULD be overturned legislatively; to be overturned by a court there has to be injury, as you point out. Either way, that big tax balloon is going down.


14 posted on 09/15/2012 5:57:31 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

At the ballot box primary you pick them.


15 posted on 09/15/2012 5:59:23 PM PDT by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

Like the man said...”NAME THEM”


16 posted on 09/15/2012 6:07:46 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

This has been brought up before. It turns out that they claim it did originate in the house since the Senate took a bill that came from the house and wiped out the text and replaced it with Obamacare. Now obviously this is a form of Fraud in a sense as it is subverting the intention of the constitution, and the founders. But I guess it is not the first time it has been done.


17 posted on 09/15/2012 6:57:53 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

18 posted on 09/15/2012 7:00:34 PM PDT by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
I don’t hear anyone talking about repealing Obamacare.

Then you're simply not hearing Romney and Ryan say it, over and over.
19 posted on 09/15/2012 7:02:21 PM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Here is some info on how they used a house bill.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2901226/posts?page=6#6


20 posted on 09/15/2012 7:11:03 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: djf

People have already been ‘dinged’ as some of the taxes have already gone into effect haven’t they?


21 posted on 09/15/2012 7:35:45 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vision

They can’t do it on their own.


22 posted on 09/15/2012 7:36:17 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

>>>Really? Which politicians, if elected, are going to repeal Obamacare? Please give me their names.

Look up the names of the 244 members of the House who last voted to repeal it. July this year I believe. Second vote to repeal in the House IIRC.


23 posted on 09/15/2012 8:07:52 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

It’s also the case that this administration has issued waivers to favored, connected businesses. As this program has been determined to be a tax, I wonder if there has been any questioning about where Obama derives the authority to issue waivers to taxes, which must be uniform and indiscriminately applied.


24 posted on 09/15/2012 8:08:07 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.” His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.

No.

His logic was that there's a difference between "citizens" and "them."

The Chief Justice laid the keys of freedom before the American People.

He must be appalled that they are too terrified to even pick them up, let alone use them.

How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

25 posted on 09/15/2012 8:49:40 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants; jessduntno

The Supreme Court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.


26 posted on 09/15/2012 8:55:02 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
The Supreme Court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.

See my post #25 above, genius.

27 posted on 09/15/2012 9:39:07 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

What a ridiculous headline! Poison pill?! If he really wanted to kill obamacare why did he go so far out of his way to make sure it passed?


28 posted on 09/15/2012 9:57:35 PM PDT by fellowpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
See my post #25 above, genius.

I did, lame apologist.
I guess you and Roberts are just smarter than everybody else.

29 posted on 09/15/2012 10:18:39 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
It was a ruling that needed another ruling and he knew it.


30 posted on 09/15/2012 11:31:18 PM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fellowpatriot

I agree. This is all wishful thinking. Roberts was bullied by the left.....and it worked. Period. End of story.


31 posted on 09/15/2012 11:55:49 PM PDT by LongWayHome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
Hope Justice John Roberts doesn’t do ua any more favors.

I call him "Judas Roberts."

32 posted on 09/16/2012 4:07:49 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle

If Romney gets elected and the case is challenged at the Supreme Court level then Obama won’t have the power of the Presidency to blackmail the Supreme Court with. Whether or not Obama and ilk will still have other powers to hold over their heads is another question. If both things happen, though, it is much more likely to be stopped by the SC.


33 posted on 09/16/2012 6:19:15 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Revel
they claim

"They claim" is the key phrase here. They claim all kinds of things that are lies. If the SC has a shred of decency left they won't let them get away with blatant fraud.

34 posted on 09/16/2012 6:22:44 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

you would have pcute cartoon. Little kids love it.referred a bolstering of the unrestricted commerce clause


35 posted on 09/16/2012 11:24:50 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“It was a ruling that needed another ruling and he knew it.”

You would have preferred a bolstering of the Statist use of the commerce clause, I guess. Tough luck. Roberts killed it. And that was his first thought. They are now forced to go back to the court for a second ruling if they want to go that way. They don’t. Now, to do it legislatively, they will be blocked by the legislative process. Unless the dumbasses that think they are clever do not pull it together to gain some majority status. TKO by Roberts.

Cute cartoon. Kids love it.


36 posted on 09/16/2012 11:30:11 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
You would have preferred a bolstering of the Statist use of the commerce clause, I guess.

It was not an either or, they could have killed it all, he chose to derail that.

37 posted on 09/17/2012 1:25:16 AM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“It was not an either or, they could have killed it all, he chose to derail that.”

Didn’t derail it, he killed it. That should come in handy some day. Now for the bill...if it’s a tax, it will have to be legislated as such. It’ll be dead, too, the first time it is applied in a state where they reject it as written. I don’t understand why everyone is whining. And no, they couldn’t kill it all. It was, in fact, an either or, except the morons in the administration didn’t see this checkmate coming. And it is checkmate. They can shuffle a few pawns around, but it’s already over.


38 posted on 09/17/2012 9:01:29 AM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Didn’t derail it, he killed it.

What part of it died, my doctor is going full force implementing the monstrosity, so is all the rest of the medical infrastructure.

You are either deluded or you are a shill.

39 posted on 09/17/2012 1:31:15 PM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“You are either deluded or you are a shill.

OK. It’s a law. Tell me...how does it work? there are whole sections that haven’t been set up. The infrastructure might be going forward, but it is NOT even written yet. Because your doctor gis going forward makes me neither a sh9ill or deluded. Your saying that makes you a fool, though. You don’t know what you are talking about.


40 posted on 09/17/2012 3:38:42 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“You are either deluded or you are a shill.”

A SHILL?

What the hell would I be “shilling” for? That’s the single dumbest thing I have ever read on here. What am I a shill for, the anti-Obamacare lobby, or is it some psyops group that is trying to practice mind control? Which of the non-existent exchanges does your doctor belong to? Which does he recommend?

You know, without the exchanges, this won’t work, right? And it’s the exchanges that represent the opportunity for the gubmint to tax us? The exchanges that will be challenged once the first person who is taxed gets standing? The exchanges that will be considered a tax, eliminated and then have to be re-integrtated into a LEGAL form of legislation, not an up or down tax vote, which will then have to be reconciled and voted upon? By BOTH houses of the Congress?

Yeah I’m a shill. You are a doofus.


41 posted on 09/17/2012 3:50:44 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
What am I a shill for, the anti-Obamacare lobby, or is it some psyops group that is trying to practice mind control?

Well you do like to try and give us shiny things to play with, so we won't see the t@rd Roberts handed us.

My insurance will change the first of this month so I have been Doctor shopping, 8 to 10 weeks to even get in to see one, want to know why?

It is supposed to comfort me that it is a tax that I will be able to appeal to the same court that imposed it. I see real genius in that plan.

42 posted on 09/18/2012 12:19:46 AM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
You don’t know what you are talking about.

I know that it does not take a lawyer to figure what out what a turd is when it is on the sandwich they are serving. If you are willing to think either party is going to take the turd out of that sandwich then you need to suffer through a few more elections.

I predicted before this bill was ever signed into law, and it is a law that enables hundreds of agencies to determine what their agenda will be, that the court would not overturn it. What was your prediction? Oh I know Roberts was going to come up with a super secret, super genius plan to have his cake and eat it too.

43 posted on 09/18/2012 12:37:47 AM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“It is supposed to comfort me that it is a tax that I will be able to appeal to the same court that imposed it. I see real genius in that plan.”

You don’t appeal the tax...it’s already been acknowledged as a tax. The BILL gets repealed, because you don’t tax through legislative action and changing the present bill back needs both houses involved...which is why it was a GOOD thing. The idea of sticking it to us using the commerce clause (which would have given the gubmint free reign to make us buy, literally, ANYTHING it wanted us to or else) was struck down. Now the bill can be challenged because it was not passed legally through the regular and lawful process and has been adjudicated. And you don’t need to be a lawyer to figure out that. You don’t even need to be a genius. Hell,. an IQ over 10 should do it for you. Ask someone else to explain it to you, I give up.


44 posted on 09/18/2012 7:40:23 AM PDT by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
The idea of sticking it to us using the commerce clause (which would have given the gubmint free reign to make us buy, literally, ANYTHING it wanted us to or else) was struck down.

You keep saying that the Court had to pick one or the other, do you really believe that? They could have struck down any part of it and invoked the non severability clause that was written into the bill.

Stuff your notion that they had to do one or the other.

There is an internet tax on your phone bill today that was placed there by Al Gore,(who invented the internet) did that originate in the House?

45 posted on 09/18/2012 11:10:04 AM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson