JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA

PJFUSCO.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | By Peter J. Fusco

[bgill]

Add me to the hate list.

[mellow velo]

I perhaps could've understood Roberts taking the position that Obamacare should be upheld by SCOTUS and any objections should be dealt with via the election/legislative process - as he touched on in his decision.

I obviously would've understood had he sided instead with the 4 justices that dissented by stating that it is unconstitutional as written and should go back to Congress.

I find it unconscionable that he then 're-wrote' the key part by inserting the "tax" concept in order to find constitutionality where none existed prior.

[rwfromkansas]

Won’t answer your stupid question, but if you look online, you will see many on the left realize the danger in the ruling for them.

Not saying I support the law.

[conservative sympathizer]

In what way is the penalty an income tax? It doesn’t tax income, it taxes people for existing without insurance coverage. It’s a poll tax.

The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one's income. It's a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.

[rwfromkansas]

Is there an article on that? Can’t find it.

If so, I will completely retract this. I am just basing it upon numerous other articles pointing out that this could (not definitely) but could have at least some good for us despite the horrible reality of the law staying.

[aruanan]

In what way is the penalty an income tax? It doesn’t tax income, it taxes people for existing without insurance coverage. It’s a poll tax.

The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one's income. It's a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.

Yeah, now you're talking like Roberts. People can have taxes levied on them without having any income at all. If someone is jobless and without any revenue stream and doesn't have health insurance then he faces the penalty of Obamacare. If it's a "tax," then it's a tax regardless of his state of income; therefore, it's not an income tax. It's a "tax" based on whether or not he did something else, that is, purchase an insurance plan. If you buy one, you don't pay the "tax." If you don't, you pay the "tax." You could call it a non-sales tax.

[ironman]

The penalty will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per person, OR a percentage of your taxable income.

Flat dollar amount for individuals: $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015; and $695 in 2016; increases indexed to inflation after that, subject to a cap.

[Tublecane]

“The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one’s income. It’s a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.”

Youn can’t actually believe that, can you? This is a wild shot in the dark to avoid thinking about the issue, isn’t it?

[aruanan]

This is our fight, not John Roberts’, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.

Yet another of the many dumb-ass remarks regarding Roberts's ploy. Roberts basically said that if he were to decide things based on how Congress and the President described them (It's not a tax; it's a penalty), Obamacare would have to be considered unconstitutional. Then he decided that he didn't want it to be unconstitutional so he interpreted it to mean exactly what they were all claiming it did NOT mean in order to give to them what they were wanting all along. This is not being a good judge. This is sophomoric word games designed to arrive at a predetermined end no matter what. He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.

[Verginius Rufus]

If G.H.W. Bush had picked a real conservative instead of Souter, that person might still be on the court--instead of Sotomayor.

Republicans have a bad track record in recent decades: Eisenhower picked Earl Warren, Nixon picked Blackmun and Powell, Ford picked Stevens, Bush-41 picked Souter, and now Bush-43's brilliant pick has betrayed us.

[Tublecane]

“You could call it a non-sales tax.”

Call it a poll tax, because that’s what it is. It is a head tax directly laid on individuals without regard to their income. Poll taxes are illegal. Therefore, so is Obamacare. (It’s illegal for other reasons, too; this is just one.)

[Tublecane]

“He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.”

Yes, because at least according to the 9th amendment there are such things as unspecified reserved rights. So the Roe argument is over whether abortion is or is not a right, not whether or not it’s in the Constitution. Obamacare, whether the penalty is a tax or not, goes against explicit portions of the Constitution, as well as its overall logic. Rewriting the law to make it constitutional goes against the most basic priciples of what it means to be a judge, as everyone understands it.

[FredZarguna]

You won’t answer me, because you can’t.