Skip to comments.Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court
Posted on 03/27/2012 4:39:56 AM PDT by Makana
On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a penalty and a tax.
The confusion arises because of the administrations argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress taxing power but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.
The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase tax penalty multiple times to describe the individual mandates backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because its collected through the tax code.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Message to four of the Supremes: You'll be similarly laughed at for contorted positions if you vote with this lawyer and vote this monster constitutional.
...two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a penalty and a tax.Being laughed at once while arguing before SCOTUS is bad enough.
Why do you keep saying tax? Breyer interjected, to more laughs.
(when even the liberal justices laugh at you, you know you're done for)
1: A group of legislators pass a bill without knowing what is in it! LOL!
2: A group of legislators pass a bill while still writing it! ROTFLMAO!
3: A group of legislators pass a bill which is purely antithetical to the U.S. constitution! Eternal Hilarity!!
Note: Bill Clinton argues it all depends on what the meaning of is, is. Absurdity reigns!
Please feel free to add to the list of liberal lunacy...
But it is interesting that Breyer sniped at him.
The whole thing is typical Leftist deceit: use twisted word definitions to try to get their tortured reasoning blessed.
Kinda like denying that an 8 week old human being isn't.
[...insert low whistle here...]
I'm 30 years old, living on a meager salary with nothing left over. My employer does not provide health insurance. How do I pay for health insurance.
I'm 40, living with my parents. I work part time landscaping. ow do I buy health insurance?
I lost my job last week and my health benefits. How do I pay for health insurance?
In my opinion, it's unenforceable except for the usual hard working folks. There's no way to make it equal for all.
It's nothing more than creating a pot to dip into which can be used for anything...just like they use SS funds.
Who was laughing...... the justices?
That will then take you to the unemployed scenario, where those who are still managing to work will be paying for your "free" ObieScare "insurance".
Those are absolutely silly questions. [/sarc]
Of course, if you can’t afford it, you’ll be subsidized,
especially if you are in a traditionally democRat voting demographic.
Obamacare the biggest scam since cap and trade.
Ask the former Soliciter General now wearing a black robe to explain the difference.
Also ask her why she has not recused herself.
The Fox News piece misses an important point:
On Day #1 the Justices considered only whether they are prohibited at this time from considering the constitutionality of the case due to the Anti-Injunction Act of such and such year. This argument was not presented by either side, but by a friend of the court.
The administration does not claim the penalty is a tax with regard to that act. Nevertheless, the administration will argue on Day #2 (today) that it amounts to a tax, or can be construed to be a tax, in terms of how Congress finds the power in the Constitution.
(I believe the administration will make two arguments to this effect.)
It is quite obvious that the Court chose to consider the argument of this particular friend of the court (and I believe there were numerous) in order to force the administration to try to thread the needle.
I am pretty sure that today the Justices will try to get the administration to explain how, if this penalty is a tax, there is any limitation on the power of Congress, thus, whether the Congress now has plenary power unrestrained by the Constitution.
If your looking for a tax, why then its a tax.
If your looking for a mandate, why then its a mandate.
It can be either depending on the day of the week and the jurisdiction of the court.
Medicare OPart B was $3 a month when it started....an hours pay back then. Now its $100 a month. Looking at comparables, how many folks do you know that make $100 an hour.
I hired 2 (30 year old like Ms. Fluke)) college kids for the summer. I have to pay their insurance fore 3 months? That's insane.
actually, those situations are perfectly fine with the libs.
YOU aren’t expected to pay for healthcare if you’re in the lower 50% of tax filers. you read that right. why? because the lower 50% of tax filers pay less then 3% of all taxes... call it 0%.
there isn’t enough money to pay for 0failurecare via taxation... without radically increasing taxes on the upper 50%.
it cost about $2.5 trillion to provide healthcare in the US during 2009.
the US collects about $2 trillion in tax revenue annually
logically, tax revenue would have to DOUBLE in order to cover the cost, and that’s before you tell everyone it’s free.
libs know that won’t happen, but if it did they would be thrilled with the radical increase of redistribution. they will gladly accept an additional $2 trillion yearly debt increase above our current debt loads... which will crater the country faster
Majority of SC are decided before oral arguments. Justices make decisions based on the briefs presented. These oral arguments are just fishing expeditions by the Judges. Judges will latch on to the arguments and use the answers to the questionsIn order to solidify their opinion. This is why you see Judges playing Devil’s Advocate with their prosecutor/defense presenter of choice hoping they will make a satisfactory argument.
A circus of monumental proportions, which is why I respect the integrity of at least 4 Justices who actually do push for opinions based on Constitutional fact. In fact Thomas gets bonus points for not putting up with asking questions that return as disingenuous answers.
My next door neighbor is an insurance provider for small, local businesses. He calls himself "Their HR Department".
We were talking awhile ago. I made a crack about Obamacare. He stopped dead, turned, and said "You have no idea how bad this is going to be."
He said that most of his clients - think small businesses, like an engineering shop primarily run around 1 or 2 PE's, or an animal clinic with 1 or 2 Vets - are closing up, or planning to. The "primaries" in the shop just don't want the hassle. They're retiring, or will go it on their own. All of the "peripheral" staff - receptionists, accountants, whatever - will just get laid off.
I asked him what he's going to do if all of his clientele goes out of business. He wasn't sure. Unsurprisingly, he was more worried about the three other people on his payroll.
So, what you suggested is already happening, or is in the works.
The left truly believe that by changing the name of something you change what it is. Therefore, a liberal becomes a progressive, an illegal alien becomes an undocumented worker, a homosexual becomes a gay. They’ve been using this tactic for many years but now it looks like they’ve been caught. By trying to change the nature of this monstrous clause in the bill and call it something it isn’t, they thought no one would notice.
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.