Posted on 10/31/2014 6:42:55 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
If you’re trying to convince the Supreme Court not to grant certiorari in a high-profile case, I suspect that publishing an op-ed in the Washington Post on the day the Court is scheduled to consider the petition is not the best strategy. I also suspect that it would be a good idea to ensure than such op-ed not include blatant falsehoods. It would be one thing for such an op-ed for forcefully advocate a given perspective on a contested issue. Quite another for it to simply make stuff up. In this case, however, we see the latter.
Friday the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the petition for certiorari in King v. Burwell. Friday’s Post also features an op-ed defending the IRS rule authorizing tax credits for the purchase of health insurance in exchanges established by the federal government at issue in King and several other pending cases. The op-ed is authored by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ron Wyden, and Representatives Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), George Miller (D-Calif.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). As the accompanying byline notes, all five were heavily involved in the efforts to enacted health care reform and the eventual passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. So if anyone knows how the law was passed, it should be these gentlemen. That makes the substance of their essay all the more odd.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
— Louis D. Brandeis , dissent in the case “Olmstead v. United States”, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)
They rammed it through congress and it ended up up our a$$es. That makes perfect sense, congress is the a$$hole.
Crime, Inc., does not recognize esrablished Rule of Law (unless they have made the law).
Why was the PPACA originally titled, and referred to in floor debate as, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009?
Roberts upheld the actual law as it was written an applied it solely to those who it specifies it actually applies to. And for those individuals under those conditions, it’s perfectly legal. Does it apply to you? How do you know if you don’t know what he actually said? It’s not his fault if nobody wants to study what he actually said, or research the limitations and restrictions in the law that actually exist - and that he took great pains to point out.
The good thing is it can be repealed the same way.
No.
Roberts sold out and sold us up the river.
He magically redefined it as a tax.
Which it most definitely is not.
Roberts can stuff himself up his own rump, he had the chance to stop an atrocious overreaching law and instead played patty cake!
Don’t forget, it also is (__)o(__)bama.
Not going to happen.
Nope, he didn't do any of that, and he doesn't deserve the hate - at all. What he actually did was lay the keys to freedom in front of Americans. But nobody wants them.
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
You and that writer have funny ideas on what constitutes “saved”.
I think there is a flaw in your argument that the ACA is authorized by IRC 6671. In the context of IRC 6671 the penalties mentioned are based (and calculated) on an underlying tax. In the ACA there is no underlying tax. The penalty is imposed for failure to perform an act that has no relation to a tax. In short, the penalty is the tax. This freestanding penalty can’t bootstrap itself into a tax no matter how hard you twist mental gymnastics. Likewise, your argument the income tax doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans is also specious. The courts have repeatedly rejected those arguments—despite any assertions you may make to the contrary. If Roberts did us all a favor we’re in the same line as all the unconstitutional tax protestors. That’s not where I want to spend my time.
The House bill was never passed. It never even came close to becoming law. The House just needed to pass something- anything- to allow the Senate to enter reconciliation.
The tax is the income tax. That's why this bill is not free standing, but deliberately positioned as an accessory to the income tax. How can you possibly offer a criticism if you're not even aware of that fundamental fact?
Likewise, your argument the income tax doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans is also specious. The courts have repeatedly rejected those arguments—despite any assertions you may make to the contrary.
The courts have never ruled on these particular arguments. They do not exist in the case law, because if they've ever been used the government dropped the case to avoid a ruling. In addition, these aren't esoteric arguments - they are simple and straightforward citations of declarations of applicable enforcement authorities made by the Title 26 itself. And finally, these aren't "my" arguments. As I took great pains to point out, they were directly indicated, invoked and even cited by the Chief Justice in his ruling. And in fact, he specifically said they need to be "strictly observed in order to avoid a police state."
So what are you left with - a declaration that I'm wrong because other people who didn't say what I'm saying are wrong, and you don't need to hear the differences? What are you, some kind of public school teacher?
LOL, thanks for playing. Go have another glass of wine.
I am "that writer," and as far as the meaning of "saved," I'd say the knowledge that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court drew a line in front of Obamacare and declared that it did NOT apply to most people is a pretty damn good definition.
“I am that writer”
LOL!!
You missed my point entirely. There is no income tax on the ACA. There is only a penalty for not having coverage. You cannot have a legally enforceable penalty under 6671 if there is no tax which is the basis for calculating the penalty. Just bexause Roberts called a penalty a tax doesn’t make it a tax. The ACA penalty is stand alone and IMHO illegal. 6671 does not justify it. Now, how about you put down the bong.
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.