Justice Ginsburg says something interesting.
“The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it’s successful, they won’t — nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.”
Funny exchange between Ginsberg and the Solicitor General (paraphrased):
RBG: ‘So if a person who is supposed to buy insurance, doesn’t do so, and pays the penalty.... if they are asked if they’ve ever violated a federal law, have they?’
SG: ‘Our position is that they should answer “No” - they have not violated federal law.”
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
Alito: (I think) ‘You keep saying “the tax”...’ (laughter)
SG: ‘The tax-penalty’
Wow! Even liberals make sense sometimes.
Nice clarification between “tax” and “penalty”.
Any variant of that applicable to the NFA transfer tax? to wit: some (*cough*paltry*cough*) revenue will be raised, nowhere near enough to cover tax office operating costs, because a few hardcore people will be willing to pay for permission to do something the tax is designed to discourage?
Another interesting comment from Justice Ginsburg:
“This is a suit that is challenging the must-buy provision, and the argument is made that, if, indeed, “must-buy” is constitutional, than these complainants will not resist the penalty. So what they’re seeking is a determination that that “must-buy” requirement, stated separately from penalty, that “must-buy” is unconstitutional, and, if that’s so, that’s the end of the case; if it’s not so, they are not resisting the penalty.”