[Lmo56]

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.

Let us not put the cart before the horse.

The question before the Court THIS YEAR is whether Obamacare is a "tax", as the Administration contends. Or if it is an unprecedented "requirement" to purchase a service [with a fine, if the requirement is not met] - as the States contend.

If the Court rules it to be a "tax" [this year], then it cannot be contested until AFTER the tax is collected [in 2015].

HOWEVER, if the Court rules it to be a "requirement", it can then rule THIS YEAR as to whether the "requirement" is constitutional.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act WOULD NOT apply in this case since it would have been ruled a "requirement" as opposed to a "tax" ...

[STARWISE]

The context isn’t the the above?

The Anti-Injunction Act issue is under consideration because of

a ruling in Liberty v. Geithner that essentially deemed the individual mandate a Constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

[Islander7]

THANK YOU! You just lowered my BP 10 points.

[Will88]

The question before the Court THIS YEAR is whether Obamacare is a "tax", as the Administration contends. Or if it is an unprecedented "requirement" to purchase a service.

Isn't it really a two step process?

1. A mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance (or have it as part of employment).

2. A penalty if health insurance is not purchased.

It would seem the argument of what is or is not a tax could only be made for the second, penalty stage.

[Wurlitzer]

“If the Court rules it to be a “tax” [this year], then it cannot be contested until AFTER the tax is collected [in 2015].”

---

Just one more piece of evidence the USSC is not doing its job and needs to be dismantled and replaced with people who will do the job as described by the founders.

If we were to follow this logic to lets say the death penalty for killing a politician then the USSC would have to wait until one was actually killed before ruling on the case.

We have a bunch of traitors to the Founders, Constitution, and Citizens of the USA sitting on the bench of the USSC making political decisions and NOT what they are mandated to do and that is make sure any law, executive order (huge problem here), regulation (usually from un-elected scum), is ALLOWED by the Constitution.

They are not there to do what they think is right at the moment if the Constitution does not allow it. That is a function for an AMENDMENT not some piece of political slime using case law to make stuff up.

Watch, and learn how many times this vile court refuses to hear a case because a US CITIZEN does NOT HAVE STANDING?

What kind of wimps are we when we allow these political hacks to say we do not have standing. If the government is involved, then we MUST have standing because our government only receives its LIMITED powers from US yet these pompous a$$e$ on the USSC have completely forgotten that.

[phockthis]

And yet they are already spending taxpayer money on it...