Posted on 10/04/2013 9:11:53 PM PDT by MrChips
Is there any evidence that Roberts was blackmailed when he made his Obamacare ruling . . . which required such contorted logic . . . and left us all hanging? I need to know for an argument I am having.
Which really means he punted when he should have stuck with the Constitution
Something big happened for him to willingly betray his integrity and the court before millions of people.
Oh!! Another one of those “present” guys. History being made here - ugly history.
If I remember correctly, Pelosi, around April before the decision came down, began bragging that Obamacare was definitely going to be upheld. How would she know that? She was so sure it would be, and it was.
Someone got to him.
There is no evidence of blackmail or any undue pressure, not that the O administration is above such reproach.
It is becoming clear that Robert’s ruling was pure genius, opening a floodgate for the law to be overturned by furthur appeal, by legislative or by citizen action. Read some of the current thinnking on his findings. He was required by virtue of the case before him to find in a narrow range of issues.
Bolton put the issue of taxation squarely in the court of the House; he allowed for more appeals by citizens and special interest groups; and, most importantly, he clarified that the so-called penalties imposed through IRS for refusal to sign up are not enforceable through any collection action. He gutted the Commerce clause abuse by effectively preventing the government from enforcing its edicts.
One of the most egregious attitudes at FR is cynicism. When this is coupled with low information, shallow, superficial thinking it results in a nasty sort of judgementalism.
Roberts is not deserving of the criticism he has received. When this is played out his role as strict Constitutionalist will be appreciated.
A sitting judge whom I know suspects that word was leaking out via Elaine Kagan.
Succinctly put. Thank you.
No, there is no real evidence, that we are aware of.
In fact, Congress in the first couple of years of the country’s history had ordered all fishing vessels to buy a medical first aid kit and keep in on the ship. So the precedent of Congress being able to order someone to buy something had long since been set.
If SCOTUS was going to overturn this, they probably needed to do it on an enumerated powers basis. But with Federal Medicare and Medicaid programs long in existence, that precedent had been set too.
Robert’s ruling that it wasn’t SCOTUS’s job to protect people from unwise political decisions put the responsibility for Obamacare back where it really belongs on the people who elect the President and Congress.
What’s more the mandate, if it works, is a move to eliminate an unconstitutional taking that has long been in place. The current law demands that medical providers treat emergency care patients without regard to ability to pay. And I support that law, because if I have an emergency, I sure don’t want doctors wasting precious time trying to figure out if I can pay before they treat me. Plus what if I’m down on my luck one day?
But for government to order the services provided and government not to pay for it if the service recipient doesn’t, is a violation of the fifth amendment which includes the clause “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
Worse than that, the current law has the effect of forcing providers to raise prices to cover the indigent care. In other words, the other sick people have to pay for it. That to me seems most unfair.
I don’t really like the mandate. But it’s either that or government pays for the care out of it’s general funds. And think the mandate should have been treated as a tax credit, we are used to tax credits, instead of a penalty tax, which we are not used to. But mathematically they are the same. It’s just a tax credit comes across as an incentive and a penalty comes across as a punishment.
He re-wrote the law just to give it back to Congress?
This morning in NR, noted attorney Andrew McCarthy argues that is not constitutional for that very reason:
Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.
We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.
He goes on to detail exactly how ObamaCare originated in the Senate, not the House. And he notes that Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ08, is leading an effort to overturn the bill due to its having been passed in violation of the Origination Clause.
Of note is the first case in this review that tests the Origination Clause. They are unclear as to whether the Court would consider this a "technicality" or would scuttle the whole thing over it.
On the one hand, the Senate took a bill that originated by Charlie Rangel in the House, but gutted it entirely and replaced it with Obamacare. On the other hand, if the Court doesn't uphold the spirit of the Origination Clause, they are effectively removing the power of the purse from the House forever more.
-PJ
Any "compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions" is a tax.
Is the penalty in Obamacare a "compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions"? Yes. So the penalty is a tax because it fits the definition of a tax, even if it isn't called a tax.
bookmark
Yes...not to defer to the legislative branch!
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.