Article, then # 1 # 5 , # 6.
Thanks, Art in Idaho.
Posted on 06/30/2012 10:19:34 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
The next day - on the merits of Commerce clause argument, the govt attorney was allowed to argue that it was indeed a tax and NOT a penalty in that if a person who paid the "whatever it is" for not having secured healthcare they would "be in full compliance with the law". It was this argument upon which Roberts based his decision that it was a tax and not a penalty.
So both Roberts and the gov attorney allowed that it was a tax when convenient to their argument and it was not a tax when it was not.
No, he knew exactly what he was doing. That was clear in his obviously ridiculous finding. There is no reason for him to reconsider given what his intention was in the first place, to find a way to uphold the law.
Article, then # 1 # 5 , # 6.
Thanks, Art in Idaho.
I am not jumping on the Justice Roberts did the wrong thing quite yet.
The filing alone would help throw it into doubt, while keeping it negatively front and center in the news.
The ruling didn’t cite which taxing authority of the congress that this new tax is to be levied under according to Mark Levin. I will wait and listen for his legal interpretation as to the application of this rule be fore I get my hopes up.
They could file for a hearing asking for more “clarification” on the tax issues and how it would apply to the “waiver” issues!
As a recovering attorney, the chances of a Petition on Rehearing being granted are almost nil. Doesn’t hurt, but don’t bank on it.
I think that once someone actually pays the “tax” the “tax” can be challenged as being unconstitutional because it of a type not enumerated in the Constitution.
CC
Not . . . . ever . . . . gonna . . . . happen (said the lawyer). I’ve argued before SCOTUS. There is a greater chance that you will walk to Mars.
dont sweat it good find
Nice thought, but SCOTUS has ruled in the past many a time that individual citizens have no standing to contest a tax.
Does anyone know of ANYBODY who is pursuing this? Like a real constitutional lawyer or Heritage Foundation or.... anyone? Or are we just wishing here?
The man is an intellectual fraud resorting to debating tactics that would not even survive in high school. At this point this man's life merits pure ridicule.
,,,, , don’t hold your breath waiting for the 40th day ,,,, and which spineless republican in congress would have the cajones to stand up to a activist supreme court decision ???? NONE !!!!! God and the Tea Party may be our last best hope . Very sad at best .
,,,, , don’t hold your breath waiting for the 25th day ,,,, and which spineless republican in congress would have the cajones to stand up to a activist supreme court decision ???? NONE !!!!! God and the Tea Party may be our last best hope . Very sad at best .
Yes, so true.
Any merit to this?
1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or deci sion of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an in mate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.
2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument.
3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response.
4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule.
5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing.
6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk’s letter will be deemed timely.
The fastest way to end this is to call an article 5 convention...OR, the 26 or so states bring up articles of secession and threaten secession from this pile of shit and get OUT of the union.
Now dont write back to me and say that articles of secession are unconstitutional..since this ruling in effect has put a final end to the constitution, then these states can do whatever the Eff they want.
Get on the horn to your state legislators and start the process. I have, and AZ has already started talking of the necessary steps. Lets see just how much guts the rest of the states have.
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.