Posted on 02/28/2015 9:59:58 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
Roberts will uphold it. It is here forever.
Roberts rewrote the law to make a penalty (something imposed for conduct) into a tax, so as to uphold it. But a penalty is not a tax, even if the Supreme Court says it is.
He rewrote the law before and he likely will have no compunctions about rewriting it again. He’s shown that he has little respect for teh written law or the Constitution when it gets in the way of what he wants to do.
Just like most of the other justices.
Suppose the government made a law requiring everyone to buy broccoli or the IRS would collect a penalty from them. Would that be a constitutional, legitimate use of the “taxing power”? I don’t think there is a serious person who would say so. Yet that is exactly what Roberts held.
“It established the precedent of “constitutionally” forcing citizens to purchase a service.”
It established the precedent of “UNconstitutionally” forcing citizens to purchase a Body Mortgage.
OK. So instead they should do what? The complaint was that Republican Congress hasn't repealed Obamacare. I pointed out that the Republicans have voted for that very thing. It is a fact that they don't have the power to repeal it alone. So what exactly is the complaint?
What would happen to such a bill when it reached Obama's desk?
Defunding isn't a real solution either because Obamacare isn't just about funding. It imposes rules on third parties, hospitals, doctors, patients, insurance companies, etc., that aren't depending on funding.
The only real solution is replacing it, and that's not going to happen with Obama as president. Unless it destroys the health care system to the point where even Obama has to accept an alternative.
The court, let alone Roberts, didn't change one word of the law. The "penalty" is imposed when you file your income taxes. If you have health insurance then you don't pay it. Claiming that somehow isn't a tax is just wordplay with no substance.
"He rewrote the law before and he likely will have no compunctions about rewriting it again."
He didn't rewrite anything. That's silly. The court didn't change the text of the law.
"He’s shown that he has little respect for teh written law or the Constitution when it gets in the way of what he wants to do."
In your imagination, because you only look at the result you wanted and see he didn't give that. He made a reasoned decision that is difficult to fault, except that it leads to a result we don't like. But the court decides the issues that are presented to them. The upcoming case is completely different. This time I expect he will again uphold the law as written, and it will have very different consequences.
.
Then a hyper-literal interpretation of a single phrase can’t be used to contradict the overall import of the second amendment either!
A criminal law requiring everyone to buy broccoli probably would be unconstitutional. At least I would hope so. But a tax on everyone, with a corresponding tax credit if you buy broccoli, is no different than things that are already done in the tax code.
You pay income taxes at a certain level. But if you have a mortgage you get to subtract mortgage interest and lower your taxes. Is that a law that requires everyone to have a mortgage? No, of course not. Same thing here. You don't have to have health insurance. But if you don't you owe an extra amount on your taxes.
The court could find no logical way to make that into something other than what it is. A tax to pay for health care, with a tax credit if you already have insurance. As I've already said, this new case is something completely different.
“private market, like it was”
Prior to Obamacare, the taxpayer was paying 70% of healthcare bills. There has not been a private market since 1965.
it is the moonbats that are fearful
the Republicans are counting on it.
Were they not, the republican state would not have brought opted out and then brought the lawsuit
The Supreme Court is will be ruling on the subsidies, not the entire bill. It is claimed that a ruling against Obama will result in gutting the bill. Parts will still be in force.
I completely agree with you. When have the Republicans reached for the obvious solution?
"Guilty as sin. Free as a bird. PERIOD."
Words don’t mean anything.
Just ask our Ministry of Truth.
“Speaking of Orwell, he was a mere 30 years ahead of his time.”
Or our time?
I reread 1984 and Animal Farm a year ago. The parallels between the book and our sad reality was scary. I just found those books, along with Brave New World, while unpacking and set them aside to read again. It’s sad that they are not required reading in schools - but not the least surprising.
My niece had to read Brave New World in school, the first few chapters anyway, she seemed to think their world wasn’t so bad
oh good, glad to hear it’s required reading somewhere. my son didn’t have to read them, nor were they even on the reading list for selecting optional books.
not even on a list, wow
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.