Since when was health care reform authored in the House?

The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | October 31, 2014 | Jonathan H. Adler

[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.

[Talisker]

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.

Your only point is deliberate obfuscation. You are reversing dependencies, blithely dismissing the existence of the income tax and reversing Roberts own ruling in order to try to confuse people. I explained these issues clearly in the article. To claim that the ACA is not dependently linked to income tax liability is a bald-faced, obvious and arrogant lie and the technique of a crude shill.

You're a waste of my time.

[Talisker]

LOL!!

Don't forget to wipe your mouth.

[cynwoody]

There is no income tax on the ACA.

Absolutely false.

[Darksheare]

It’s so cute that you wish to portray yourself as a “great thinker”, but your basic premise is that a penalty is a tax.
Magically, somehow.
So, I will LAUGH at you.
Because it is quite amusing in a “aw, look at that child” kind of way.

[Darksheare]

The penalty in the ACA is not a tax, it is a penalty.
And no amount of gymnastics will make it magically a tax.
Roberts screwed up.
And no amount of wishful thinking by others will change that.

[cynwoody]

ObamaCare contains 20 new or higher taxes. If you don't want to count the mandate, that leaves 19. Here's the list:

http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes

ObamaCare is a revenue bill which originated in the Senate. That's unconstitutional.

[Ray76]

Making things up is what the Supreme Court is all about.

[Ray76]

>> The good thing is it can be repealed the same way.

Yeah. Boehner will get right on that.

[Darksheare]

What Roberts ruled on was not a tax.
He invented it that “tax” to save Obamacare.
It was NOT in any way hidden brilliance on his part.
That some idiots believe such is amusing.

[Talisker]

It’s so cute that you wish to portray yourself as a “great thinker”, but your basic premise is that a penalty is a tax. Magically, somehow. So, I will LAUGH at you. Because it is quite amusing in a “aw, look at that child” kind of way

Oh look a tag-team shill who insults as a child would.

Especially in leaving out those pesky facts in order to get to the schoolyard taunts.

The details of the penalty versus tax discussion are, of course, in my linked analysis. And as they arise from the legal definitions of Title 26, as used long before Obamacare came along (as was pointed out by Roberts), they are not subject to argument, only application.

Which is why the Chief Justice invoked the jurisdictional definitions and limitations of the income tax, of course, and warned against misapplying that power of enforcement.

So that's what you're claiming to laugh at - that I'm pointing out that Roberts pointed out that Obamacare doesn't apply to most people.

But then, you're not really laughing. What you're really doing is flipping through shill NLP manuals trying to find words to scare soccer moms into not reading or understanding the ruling. Which is, of course, pretty pathetic. But when I watch you do your Muppet dance and realize that you actually believe your tactics are invisible, then it is I who laugh - for real.

Children, children everywhere, and all with loaded diapers.

[Darksheare]

First person to throw out insults was....you.

"LOL, thanks for playing. Go have another glass of wine."

Thanks for playing!

[Talisker]

First person to throw out insults was....you. "LOL, thanks for playing. Go have another glass of wine." Thanks for playing!

That wasn't an insult, it was a response to another poster who was misrepresenting the legal issue. There were two possibilities - one, she was a paid shill disrupter deliberately lying, or two, she was drunk. Being a kind and compassionate person, I opted to believe she was drunk, rather than someone who had sold her soul to Satan.

Let me put that in perspective: I would never dream of calling you a drunk.

Thanks for playing.

[Darksheare]

It was an insult, don’t play stupid.

[supercat]

They do not exist in the case law, because if they've ever been used the government dropped the case to avoid a ruling.

One of the major causes of tyranny is the Court's continuing failure to distinguish between things which are legitimate, and things that cannot be shown to be illegitimate. This distinction is important, since the benefits of the doubt, which should be afforded to those who endeavor in good faith to act legitimately, should not be extended to those who deliberately act in ways whose legitimacy is at best murky.

[Talisker]

It was an insult, don’t play stupid.

LOL, who's playing stupid?

[Talisker]

One of the major causes of tyranny is the Court's continuing failure to distinguish between things which are legitimate, and things that cannot be shown to be illegitimate. This distinction is important, since the benefits of the doubt, which should be afforded to those who endeavor in good faith to act legitimately, should not be extended to those who deliberately act in ways whose legitimacy is at best murky.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. It's taken two full years for someone to point this out since my analysis of the Roberts decision.

The judiciary is playing a very deceitful game in America. They play all sorts of jurisdictional games with the citizens of this country, not just to throw people into jail who they actually have no authority over, but also to allow themselves to not admit what they are doing to the people to whom they are doing it.

It's a bad, bad situation. Since I've discovered it, I've endeavoured to expose its existence as carefully as I can so people can understand the reality of the problem. Which, of course, has meant dealing with a lot of shill spit. Nevertheless, it had to be done.

But there's nothing I can do about indifference, or worse, cowardice. I suppose in the great scheme of things, I've spoken the truth about the lie, and I'm glad for it. But I weep for an America which turns its back on the very mechanism of its enslavement. Such actions, historically, attract the wrath of God. And that doesn't mean terrorism. Far worse than terrorism is the loss of the American spirit, the pursuit of goodness, replaced by mocking cynicism and worldly materialism. There's no need for terrorists when Americans simply give up on the essential goodness of their country's founding ideals.

Americans have been given a special dispensation apart from all the other countries of the world - a government under the God-given rights of the People. To turn our backs on that staggeringly valuable gift is a sin so vast I literally don't know what God's response will be, except it won't be good. And it will be beyond the petty efforts of any person or group. Nobody believes in Divine Intervention anymore, so it must not be true... except AFAIK God doesn't give a damn about Facebook.

[Darksheare]

So you aren’t playing at being stupid?
You seriously believe that post 17 “have another glass of wine” wasn’t an insult?
Must be nice in your world.
And you sure got your nose out of joint wh n you got told to put down your bong!
Your huffy response “you’re a waste of my time!”
Lol, mayhaps you should lay off the coke, talisker.

[Talisker]

Bye.

[supercat]

It's taken two full years for someone to point this out since my analysis of the Roberts decision.

I'm not sure what can be done to undo all the rot, but I think it would help if people could realize that although:

1. The Supreme Court's job involves determining what laws mean;
2. If the Supreme Court does its job legitimately, the laws will mean what the Court says they mean;
3. the Constitution would provide no remedy for someone who was wronged by an illegitimate Supreme Court ruling.

those factors together do not imply that Supreme Court rulings are legitimate--merely that they are binding whether or not they are legitimate because illegitimate decisions would admit no remedy. The notion that precedent should generally be the first thing considered when examining a case is backward. The only times precedent should be considered would be when:

1. The precedent supports a ruling that could be justified without precedent, but serves as a basis for favoring that ruling over other possible ones which would also be justifiable under law.
2. The precedent is expressly recognized as illegitimate, but failing to consider it would magnify the harm caused thereby. For example, if a court wrongfully allows one party in a case to do something and that other party files suit for the right to do likewise, the court should award the same privilege to the other party. Even if the court shouldn't have awarded the privilege to either party, awarding it to both would be less harmful than awarding it to one but not the other.

If the Court could recognize the simple principle that its rulings are not always sound, but that they would bind the parties to the case whether they are sound or not, then it would be possible for the Court to actually base rulings on the Constitution and statutes, rather than trying to trying figure out a twisted and contorted version of what the Constitution and statutes would have to mean in order for the Court's earlier rulings to have been consistent with them. If everyone in government always abided by the Constitution, there would be no legitimate reason for the Court to ever do likewise. On the other hand, sometimes illegitimate actions not anticipated by the Constitution may necessitate a remedy which was likewise not anticipated. That the Court has power to effect such remedies upon parties to cases before it, however, does not imply that such remedies should be considered "law" for anyone other than the actual parties to cases that are decided in such fashion.

[Lakeshark]

Whenever I see a poster telling us how John Roberts "saved" us with his "brilliant" bamster care ruling, I want to run screaming into some frozen lake somewhere.......

You all DID notice how he saved us, didn't you?

*crickets*