ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[nehalem256]

We will do that right after we make people who drop out of school sign a waiver saying they will not bitch about how much money other people make or go on welfare.

I like the way you think :thumbsup:

 

[manimal]

I like the way you think :thumbsup:

You do realize that my devils advocate position was a fantasy just like yours right?

 

[Fern]

It's not like the Court was facing a deadline, so, yeh, I agree.

I'm pretty sure the schedule is entirely the responsibility of Roberts.

I'm also under the impression June is customary deadline for the rendering of opinion heard since the session began in Oct. Afterwards, they turn their attention to upcoming cases.

Also, I didn't imply Roberts' hands were tied. I'm saying it looks like he switched late not giving the other Justices adequate time to rewrite their opinion and I wondered aloud if he did this purposefully.

That doesn't make sense. If Roberts had time to write a legally binding majority opinion, why would the dissenters not have time to write a legally nonbinding dissent?

EDIT: Oh, and also there's no way the dissenters couldn't have edited their opinion had they wanted to ahead of time. If those references to 'the dissent' weren't deliberately left in they have some incredibly shoddy editors.

For one thing, his opinion looks rather hastily done. It's skeletal in significant areas; particularly that regarding indirect taxes versus direct taxes.

Another curious area is his shallow response to the application of the anti-injunction law. According to him the constitutional question of whether the mandate is a penalty or a tax doesn't apply because Congress wrote the anti injunction law; yet Congress also wrote the ACA.

I.e., I don't see any evidence that Roberts had a lot of time to write his (new) opinion. And it seems to me he would have to write his opinion for them to read before they could respond. Again, the scheduling is up to Roberts. IIRC, the court (1) schedule individual time for the Justices to do their own preparation for upcoming cases, (2) hears arguments, (3) schedules time to jointly meet and discuss, and (4) based upon results in #3 pairs off to write opinions. My contention is that it appears only after all that was completed did Roberts change his mind and rewrite his opinion.

Furthermore he injected two two substantial new and weighty arguments into the case with his revision. The issue of whether it was a direct tax or an indirect tax (or some different kind of tax) was not originally considered in any depth whatsoever. The basis for Roberts' decision it was a tax and not penalty was also new and unique. These changes would require a (substantially) whole new opinion. There are not minor changes.

I see now no grounds to assume they were provided sufficient time to respond.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I agree, we do need more information. I would mention a couple of things:
1) The current administration is still insisting it's a penalty and not a tax and since the IRS is an Executive Branch agency I would bet that they formulate their policy as such; and
-snip-

Possibly.

But I wonder if the IRS has legal authority to regulate in this matter. Tax statutes are in Title 26 and, IIRC, their statutory authority arises from provisions contained therein and is limited to matters in Title 26. But my understanding is the ACA penalty is not in Title 26, but a separate Title. (I can't remember which ATM.)

I have not seen anything remotely like this before, and am left with more questions than answers.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I'm pretty sure the schedule is entirely the responsibility of Roberts.

I'm also under the impression June is customary deadline for the rendering of opinion heard since the session began in Oct. Afterwards, they turn their attention to upcoming cases.

Also, I didn't imply Roberts' hands were tied. I'm saying it looks like he switched late not giving the other Justices adequate time to rewrite their opinion and I wondered aloud if he did this purposefully.



For one thing, his opinion looks rather hastily done. It's skeletal in significant areas; particularly that regarding indirect taxes versus direct taxes.

Another curious area is his shallow response to the application of the anti-injunction law. According to him the constitutional question of whether the mandate is a penalty or a tax doesn't apply because Congress wrote the anti injunction law; yet Congress also wrote the ACA.

I.e., I don't see any evidence that Roberts had a lot of time to write his (new) opinion. And it seems to me he would have to write his opinion for them to read before they could respond. Again, the scheduling is up to Roberts. IIRC, the court (1) schedule individual time for the Justices to do their own preparation for upcoming cases, (2) hears arguments, (3) schedules time to jointly meet and discuss, and (4) based upon results in #3 pairs off to write opinions. My contention is that it appears only after all that was completed did Roberts change his mind and rewrite his opinion.

Furthermore he injected two two substantial new and weighty arguments into the case with his revision. The issue of whether it was a direct tax or an indirect tax, or some different kind of tax was not originally considered. It didn't need to be. The basis for Roberts' decision was also new and unique.

I see now no grounds to assume they were provided sufficient time to respond.

Fern

This does not appear to be correct.

From CBS's scoop on it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...re-law/?pageNum=4&tag=contentMain;contentBody

The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

Those are pretty good grounds to show that their lack of response was deliberate, not a function of time.

 

[zinfamous]

Taking away money from one group of people to give to others doesn't help them it only makes them dependent. This is not the solution and I dont want to pay for this no matter the cost

It's an interesting assumption.

But, where is the data that shows this to be the case in practice?

 

[Fern]

This does not appear to be correct.

From CBS's scoop on it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...re-law/?pageNum=4&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Those are pretty good grounds to show that their lack of response was deliberate, not a function of time.

From the article:

Even in Roberts' opinion, which was circulated among the justices in early June,

That's not much time, given the deadline of June 1 for the majority opinion and June 15 for dissenting.

And what else was scheduled for this period? (For one thing another big case involving immigration/AZ.)

Without more verifiable info it's not possible to now know one way or another, but to believe that the 4 dissented but decided not to on so significant an issue (or set of issues) is difficult to believe. Not that Roberts possible switcheroo is, but we do have the 'odd' written opinions as actual evidence of sorts.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Well the source for the article itself gives an explicit reason, so we do in fact have evidence as to why. If you want to discount it that's your business but the available evidence is clear:they chose not to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is the right wing's new desperation ploy -- try to turn this into a debate over whether or not Obama "raised taxes on the middle class". Doing this requires a huge amount of outright dishonesty, but that of course has never stopped a political campaign before.

For their part, it appears the Democrats are responding by pointing out that the "tax" is a penalty meant to discourage free-riders -- an argument that they derived directly from Romney, much like the ACA itself.

So we are left with the amusing result of alleged "responsible conservatives" arguing that it's better for people who can afford to be responsible for their own health to refuse to pay for it and leech off of hospitals if and when they have a problem, and so-called "irresponsible liberals" arguing the opposite.

Responsibility is one thing. Broadly punishing for not having something the government can't hasn't the right to require is another. There is an important principle here besides healthcare. You can now be compelled to do virtually anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

Responsibility is one thing. Broadly punishing for not having something the government can't hasn't the right to require is another. There is an important principle here besides healthcare. You can now be compelled to do virtually anything.

Except that the SCOTUS just decided that the govt does have the right to require... at least wrt healthcare coverage. If you really can't afford it, such will be provided to you on a sliding scale.

It's not unusual for Roberts to broaden the scope of a ruling when it suits him, particularly when it suits the conservative faction. Corporate personhood wasn't even brought up in Citizens United until the court injected it... Plaintiffs sought a much narrower verdict than what was rendered, much narrower indeed.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Furthermore he injected two two substantial new and weighty arguments into the case with his revision. The issue of whether it was a direct tax or an indirect tax (or some different kind of tax) was not originally considered in any depth whatsoever. The basis for Roberts' decision it was a tax and not penalty was also new and unique. These changes would require a (substantially) whole new opinion. There are not minor changes.

Fern

I haven't read through the whole decision yet but I did come across the part concerning it not being a direct tax (as Roberts states) and it caught my attention.

"(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportionto the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Courts precedents. It there-fore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 4041."

This whole paragraph is confusing. Paraphrasing from above:

- The new "healthcare tax" must comply with the Direct Tax Clause.
- A tax on going with healthcare insurance is not like a capitation or direct tax so does not need to be apportioned.

So it's a direct tax that doesn't need to be apportioned. Doesn't that clearly defy the section of the Constitution he quoted in the paragraph?

Maybe the real key phrases are "Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax" and "under this Courts precedents."

Anyone else have thoughts/ideas on this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except that the SCOTUS just decided that the govt does have the right to require... at least wrt healthcare coverage. If you really can't afford it, such will be provided to you on a sliding scale.

It's not unusual for Roberts to broaden the scope of a ruling when it suits him, particularly when it suits the conservative faction. Corporate personhood wasn't even brought up in Citizens United until the court injected it... Plaintiffs sought a much narrower verdict than what was rendered, much narrower indeed.

What inherent limit is there on a punishment tax?

 

[Jhhnn]

Being mostly lucky? You can't be that serious!!!!!!! Really.

Let see. LEGAL immigrants like myself came here with almost nothing, within a few years, working our butts off, became sucessfull. Millions of average Americans working their tails off everyday to move up and better themselves, must be luck there.

On the other side, native born Americans, sitting around, knocking off bitches and hoes, blaming everything on "whiteys, Bush, Republicans, The Pope, Mother Theresa, Fill In The Blank Excuses Under The Sun", dropping out of school, comitting crimes..and other misdeeds....and are still at the bottom of the totem pole even after years and years of set aside programs, affirmative action programs, Great Society programs, and other beneficial programs.

Yup, it is ALLLLL LUCK. Those darn bastard Asian students. Must be all luck because even with no set aside programs and blatant discrimination from college admissions, they are still overwhelmingly in presentation and do well in college. Yup, all luck there. The Lucky God must be Asian.

Oh no, must be because they did not pay any taxes, or small penises, or slant eyes, or upside down vaginas, can't drive, fill in the blank stupid stereotype jokes, right?

BTW, independent here. Neither R or D, thank you very much.

Heh. Failure to recognize that luck, fortune, joss plays a significant role in our lives is a common failing of people who are full of themselves.

I'll readily admit that I've been lucky, beginning with the accident of my birth. I have no physical deformities, and have been blessed with what is apparently slightly higher than average intelligence. I was born in this country to a family of moderate means, who believed in work & the benefits thereof, at a time & in a place where I received an entirely decent public education. I was fortunate to have other innate talents wrt machinery that have allowed me to make a decent living.

Little of that was really my doing, at all. I suspect that you've enjoyed many of the same advantages, and were really quite fortunate to have entered this country as a legal immigrant. Millions of others who would do so have not been so lucky.

So, uhh, count your blessings as blessings, not as a platform for some sort of moral superiority, some way to degrade others as if your successes weren't made largely possible by circumstances beyond your control. Obviously, you've taken the luck you've had and made good use of it, which is commendable.

That doesn't give you the right to be a self righteous jerk, or to climb up on your pity pot of being a hard working Asian victimized by the rest of us. It's not like anybody here could tell w/o your announcing it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Meh, I'm going to retire in less than a decade and I'll get medicaid. My immediate family and some bright other people aren't going to deal with the regulatory crap so they won't go into a health related field so they won't waste their time. It's a win/win that way.

 

[lopri]

What inherent limit is there on a punishment tax?

The Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights, as well as political will (read: votes from you). Which is why there will never be a "Broccoli Horrible".

P.S. OK, "never" may be too strong of a word. How about "never in this century?" I am reasonably confident of that.

Edit: Wait, I thought you're talking about the limits of federal government. But you're responding to Citizens United and judicial activism.. it seems?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights, as well as political will (read: votes from you). Which is why there will never be a "Broccoli Horrible".

P.S. OK, "never" may be too strong of a word. How about "never in this century?" I am reasonably confident of that.

Edit: Wait, I thought you're talking about the limits of federal government. But you're responding to Citizens United and judicial activism.. it seems?

What I'm talking about is that the limit of coercion to engage in a government desired behavior doesn't seem to exist as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Outside of those, the government which was once a entity of enumerated powers is now a historical curiosity, able to punish by the power of taxation. There isn't a "requirement" to do anything, just an onerous crushing weight.

Those on the left who have embraced this need to remember what has been unleashed once Dick Cheney (or rather his equivalent) comes to power one day. Crying to the Constitution for protection will no longer be possible. He will have the power and the right.

 

[nehalem256]

What I'm talking about is that the limit of coercion to engage in a government desired behavior doesn't seem to exist as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Outside of those, the government which was once a entity of enumerated powers is now a historical curiosity, able to punish by the power of taxation. There isn't a "requirement" to do anything, just an onerous crushing weight.

Those on the left who have embraced this need to remember what has been unleashed once Dick Cheney (or rather his equivalent) comes to power one day. Crying to the Constitution for protection will no longer be possible. He will have the power and the right.

Just wait until Mississippi figures out that it can levy an Abortion tax.

 

[fskimospy]

Just wait until Mississippi figures out that it can levy an Abortion tax.

There's no worry about that at all, it would be swiftly struck down as unconstitutional and you know it.

Pretty fantastic, huh?

 

[nehalem256]

There's no worry about that at all, it would be swiftly struck down as unconstitutional and you know it.

Pretty fantastic, huh?

Which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the ACA decision doesnt it?

 

[fskimospy]

Which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the ACA decision doesnt it?

Nope! One is constitutional as just shown and the other would not be. I already explained this to you. So yes, feel free to encourage any state you want to try and pass an abortion tax or whatever and watch just how fast it gets thrown in the trash can.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope! One is constitutional as just shown and the other would not be. I already explained this to you. So yes, feel free to encourage any state you want to try and pass an abortion tax or whatever and watch just how fast it gets thrown in the trash can.

BS. There is no difference other than one is an activity you approve of and one is not.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Just wait until Mississippi figures out that it can levy an Abortion tax.

States have been effectively doing this for years already.

The truth is that the government being able to coerce you into doing X or Y is not new.

 

[fskimospy]

BS. There is no difference other than one is an activity you approve of and one is not.

Sure is a big difference. One involves actual rights recognized by the USSC and the other one involves rights you made up in your head. But then again what you and I think is entirely irrelevant. I will take any and all bets that if a state passes a meaningful abortion tax that it is struck down in the courts very quickly. I'll even give you quite favorable odds!

So no, liberals (at least this one) are not the slightest bit worried about abortion taxes of any kind. Feel free to keep raging about the health care decision though.

 

[nehalem256]

Sure is a big difference. One involves actual rights recognized by the USSC and the other one involves rights you made up in your head. But then again what you and I think is entirely irrelevant. I will take any and all bets that if a state passes a meaningful abortion tax that it is struck down in the courts very quickly. I'll even give you quite favorable odds!

So no, liberals (at least this one) are not the slightest bit worried about abortion taxes of any kind. Feel free to keep raging about the health care decision though.

So you do not think their is not an inherent right to have the government not force you to purchase things?

 

[fskimospy]

States have been effectively doing this for years already.

The truth is that the government being able to coerce you into doing X or Y is not new.

Of course it's not new. The government has always had enormous power to coerce people into behaving as it wants. I think people just genuinely didn't realize it. Hell, as has been mentioned before George Washington signed an individual mandate for people to purchase a private product (firearms).

That being said, it is highly unlikely that any state could pass an 'abortion tax' of any size large enough to actually stop abortions to any meaningful degree. It would be slapped down by the courts pretty fast.