Posted on 02/24/2015 7:53:56 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform. As the high court prepares to weigh another challenge that could shatter Obamacare, a review of Roberts’ recent votes and opinions suggest he could again sway the case the government's way.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
“In order to save Obamacare, Roberts rewrote it as one big tax bill, even though Obama and the Democrats had repeatedly claimed that it was not a tax.”
___________
Oddly enough, the first time I heard the bill referred to as a tax, before it was passed, was when I heard Rush play a clip where Obama was claiming it was not a tax, and Rush interrupted the tape to scream “It’s a tax!!! Plain and simple.” Maybe Roberts was listening to Rush.
As everyone is aware, there is extensive gossip in the political community to the effect that Roberts and his wife have only two children who were adopted.
They were purportedly born in a foreign jurisdiction and there were in place legal constraints that effectively precluded US persons from adopting children born there under the circumstances of the Roberts adoption.
So to avoid those restrictions, the adoption was accomplished through the device of a third country system. Whether or not the third country worked to accomplish an effective adoption or not is not clear from the level of gossip in circulation.
The presumed threat is that the Roberts' could lose their two children several years down the road from the initial adoption events.
The end consequence of this condition, as reported by loose talk and political gossip, is that Roberts' vote on Obamacare was leveraged by the zero in the White House to uphold legislation that everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face.
I do not know what, if any, merit, substance, or facts exist to support the gossip.
I think it is and was the obligation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to know stuff like this. The gossip alone, unrefuted that it is by any authoritative response, affects confidence in our Constitutional process.
What should be done is that House Judiciary should immediately schedule a hearing on the issue and subpoena Justice Roberts to explain the actual facts.
Why House Judiciary instead of the Senate? Because that is where impeachment proceeding would be initiated. If this fairy tale is true, Roberts should be impeached immediately.
This statement should be bolded and circulated widely.
Frank's statement, while he may not have intended to be so "frank" (pun intended), is a statement of fact which indicates the sheer arrogance of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi team and their rubber stamp Democrats.
Arrogance and an underestimation of the intelligence and will of "the People" who are their bosses in the States brought about this "mistake" which the Supreme Court should not legitimize by allowing any other interpretation of the word "mistake" when applied to the abominable Trojan Horse legislation masked as having to do with health care in America.
Gruber's description, coming from a complicit architect of ACA, should be accepted as evidence of intent, and "the People" and "States" have spoken!
Last time, “Obamacare is not a tax” meant “Obamacare is a tax”. This time, “exchanges established by the states” might mean “exchanges established by FedGov”. If Chief Justice Roberts votes that way, it’s time to give up on peacefully restoring the rule of law. We will no longer be a constitutional republic, and FedGov will have no legitimacy. Only physical force can compel free Americans to obey an illegitimate government, and I’m not sure even FedGov force will be enough if the Court disregards the plain language of a terrible and destructive law.
Upside down and inside out.
I am sure they can find a foreign law or a evaporative pnumbra as the source that makes Obamacare okay.
UN elites supporting UN goals.
“It’s like deja vu all over again” Yogi Berra
SSDD
Besides, who really gives two shakes of a rat’s tail what the SCOTUS rules. Or for that matter, the entire government. I’ll do what I please, ignoring whatever laws I don’t like. Just like the half breed does.
-— I’ll do what I please, ignoring whatever laws I don’t like. Just like the half breed does. -—
Unless Cruz is elected, only civil disobedience will stop this thing.
Government’s favor = People’s disadvantage.
I fear you are right. Dictatorships usually have a compliant judiciary to give them the cloak of legitimacy. The US seems to be following the model of Venezuela under Chavez and now Maduro. If Roberts fixes Obamacare again, we will know that the US cannot be fixed from within the system and the citizenry and conservative groups will have to make a crucial decision on what to do next.
” Roberts did more than cast the deciding vote. He wrote an opinion that did backward flips to strain logic.”
Roberts was allegedly a top legal scholar at Harvard Law School. No scholar could write this pretzel logic drivel, unless they were coerced. This is Joe Biden territory.
Courts are in the business of lying and making the lie sound like the truth.
“In order to save Obamacare, Roberts rewrote it as one big tax bill, even though Obama and the Democrats had repeatedly claimed that it was not a tax.”
Correct. He will screw us.
PPACA SEC. 1401 creates section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code:
SEC. 1401(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:
SEC. 36B (a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed
as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year
an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for
the taxable year.
(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section--
(1) In general.-- <> The term `premium assistance
credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum
of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2)
with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring
during the taxable year.
(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance amount determined
under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount
equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more
qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.
SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) is explicitly specified as applying to an Exchange established by the State under 1311.
For SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B) to be given effect SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B) must necessarily also refer to Exchanges established by the State under 1311, otherwise 36B(b)(2) would be meaningless because a taxpayer can not be enrolled in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser amount applies.
Courts would have to either ignore the explicit and unambiguous letter of the law and introduce the absurdity that SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) “Exchange established by the State under 1311" includes “Exchange established by the Federal government under 1321", or simply read out of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) “Exchange established by the State under 1311".
The law is not ambiguous or unreasonable, Congress’ intent is clear. There are no "errors" for the judiciary to correct.
The court can not reconstruct a statute to satisfy an agency’s claim or to provide cover for their illegal acts.
The act explicitly provides tax credits for Exchanges established by the State and excludes tax credits for Exchanges established by the Federal government. This was intended as an inducement to states to establish exchanges. Many states did not establish exchanges, this was not anticipated by the authors of PPACA.
A recently made claim revolves around the meaning of "such an exchange", that this phrase makes “Exchange established by the State under 1311" equivalent to “Exchange established by the Federal government under 1321". This claim is based on SEC. 1311 (d)(1)
and SEC. 1321 (c)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the PPACA, parts of which I've highlighted.(d)(1) In general.--An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.
(c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary deter- mines necessary to implement—
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such sub- titles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not- for-profit entity) establish and
operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to implement such other requirements.
SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) of the IRS code clearly states "Exchange established by the State". It does not say "Exchange established within the State".
Administration lawyers are attempting to obfuscate by claiming there is ambiguity where none exists, and absent that they are attempting to generate ambiguity. The law is clear: the act explicitly provides tax credits for Exchanges established by the State and excludes tax credits for Exchanges established by the Federal government.
The libs always win so they will win again. The only time they don’t win is when it comes to higher taxes for wealthy and corporations. It seems like the country clubbers take conservative positions just to trade them off for these tax breaks. They prove Lenin’s, dictum, “the capitalist will sell the rope to his own hanging”.
Could? I’d say with Roberts it’s a certainty.
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.