Posted on 02/21/2012 11:55:07 PM PST by STARWISE
This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!
Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).
The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida -- now expanded by 30 minutes to an unprecedented six hours -- are slated to take place late next month. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July.
But will it be the final ruling? That's now less clear.
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.
The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn't check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.
Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking boths sides on it: in Congress, the President's men say it's not a tax; in court, they say it is.
If the high Court decides the mandate is a tax, it will be a dream come true for the Administration:
President Obama faces reelection in November 2012. ObamaCare doesn't go into full operation until January 2014. The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won't be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015. The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016.
Until now, everyone has been assuming the Court will rule on the law's constitutionality in early July, five full months before the 2012 elections.
And we've all been assuming that, however the Court rules, the ruling will provide voters with a critical piece of information: What does the Supreme Court think about ObamaCare's constitutionality?
Alas, today's development calls that assumption into doubt. The Court might punt!
The expanded time given to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act issue suggests two things:
1) The high Court is taking seriously the idea that the mandate is a tax -- the strongest possible basis for finding ObamaCare constitutional.
2) If the Court decides that the mandate is a tax, it may be forced to postpone a ruling on the mandate's constitutionality until after the tax has actually been collected on a citizen -- three years hence.
Today's development is just another reason why we cannot count on the courts to repeal the government takeover of health care. However the Supreme Court finally decides, we citizens must keep fighting to protect our threatened health care liberties in the halls of Congress -- and at the ballot-box.
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy
P.S. Last week, we filed a formal legal brief in this important litigation.
Good grief can this court get any worse? Sadly yes!
The American Marxists have planned, schemed, and worked for 110 years to get to this point. It is ludicrous to think that Reagan's prophecy of a "...thousand years of darkness..." can be avoided any other way.
If you Google "Anti-Injunction Act", there are many web pages of analysis devoted to it. Here is the partial text of one of them:
"The most sensible reading of the Anti-Injunction Act’s text and purpose is that it does not apply until the authority to assess and collect taxes has come into being, just as it does not apply after that authority has been exercised."
The authority to tax does not come into being until 2015 ...
Well, sounds like the Roberts Court is going to be the rubber stamp for 0bamaCare, just as it was for the dubious inauguration of the Kenyan Usurper, sworn in THREE TIMES by Roberts himself.
Hey, maybe the next appointment to the SCOTUS can be somebody like Roland Freisler? (Hell, maybe he’s already there)
“Good grief can this court get any worse?”
Yes, and that’s very scary. We can’t afford another liberal appointment.
The rats included several years of funding in Obamacare.
I think I’m going to be ill.. Our ONLY option is to roundly defeat the 0bama in Novemebr and overwhelmingly take both houses.
THANK YOU! You just lowered my BP 10 points.
The only Problem I see and one it seems the Cowards on the Bench have,is they dont have the Balls to say to one of the Litigants,make up your mind on how you want to argue this Case,do you contend it is a Tax or not.
In public they are Contending it is Not a Tax and that is what the President has said in Public in Interviews,but in court they are arguing it is because they know thats the only way they win. To me whether it is a tax or not The Freakin Government is going to have the Power to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as they call it a tax. How Crazy is that.
You will eat arugala because we will fine you if you dont and we can do it because it is a Tax .
thats it, this truely shows where the allegiance of SCOTUS lies, and it is not with WE THE PEOPLE
thats it, this truely shows where the allegiance of SCOTUS lies, and it is not with WE THE PEOPLE
never been a doubt on the fix being in,
only people living in denial will get the bricks falling on their heads
DO YOUR JOBS!
The Bill to repeal it would have to go throught the Senate first before anyone could sign it.
Reid has not brought to the floor.
We would have to have a GOP Senate to send it to the President.
IBTZ.
Very simple reason. The court is expecting it to be repealed by congress and the next President and then it will save them a headache.
This is the problem when there are too many laws...
There are just as many loopholes.
2016 huh?
That’s exactly what I would expect from a “stacked” court. Doesn’t it seem strange that the decision will be made AFTER Obama’s reign?
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.