Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.wpengine.com ...
I've suspected that for awhile.
Jesuit = Marxist, I think you just made daisy mae’s argument for her.
That's where Roberts screwed us. The mandate is not going to be considered or implemented as a tax by the government.
Roberts ruling just said that the government has the power to implement the mandate under it's taxation powers.
Right, the whole maj decision is a cheat to avoid addressing the Severability Clause. It smacks of Warren/Burger-era paralogisms...
IMHO, if the HC decision comes down on June 28th and goes against the Constitution, it will have been done by the jihadis.
1389 ? Battle of Kosovo takes place between Serbian and Ottoman army.
1519 ? Charles V is elected Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_28
1914 - Archduke Francis Ferdinand and the Mrs. Archduke were assassinated by Serb nationalist in (what is now known as) Sarajevo, Bosnia. WW I begins.
1919 - The Treaty of Versailles was signed ending World War I exactly five years after it began. The treaty also established the League of Nations.
1942 - German troops launched an offensive to seize Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad.
1949 - The last U.S. combat troops were called home from Korea, leaving only 500 advisers.
1950 - North Korean forces captured Seoul, South Korea.
1954 - French troops began to pull out of Vietnam?s Tonkin Province.
1960 - In Cuba, Fidel Castro confiscated American-owned oil refineries without compensation.
1964 - Malcolm X founded the Organization for Afro American Unity to seek independence for blacks in the Western Hemisphere.
http://www.on-this-day.com/onthisday/thedays/alldays/jun28.htm
The Night of the Long Knives started on June 29th...as in the day following.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/night_of_the_long
Yep, you’re right. Thanks for the correction. I guess we should all be brushing up on our Arabic.
your= you’re
2+2+5 was suppose to be 2+2=5.
Does anyone here know exactly how much of a tax must be paid by those who refuse to buy health insurance?
We're not that helpless. Simply start a movement for a constitutional amendment that will outlaw this kind of broad taxing power. I find it hard to believe that we can't get enough of the public behind an anti-tax amendment to make it viable. It's time to turn lemons into lemonade and turn this crisis into an opportunity. This overreach of taxing authority could be the argument we need to get a good anti-tax amendment passed.
All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.
So how many millions do you think you need to kill?
Think. What happens if we win? What is the plan?
What will you do with the grasshoppers?
Exactly. He’s been threatened - probably with another run on the bank. Like the media, and Bush, and McCain, and Cheney, and Clinton, and Boehner, and Judge Surick, and Judge David Carter, and Judge Michael Malihi, and...
Some of those could have been bribed or threatened by other means (such as Clinton through violence/deaths of Gwatney and Tubbs), but those who truly love this country and have no past to be blackmailed with were probably subjected to the threat of the country being destroyed by another run on the bank if they didn’t do whatever Soros demanded.
another thing this tells us is that there’s no way Roberts will ever vote against Roe and Casey. None.
So there’s at most 3 votes against it on the Court at the moment.
So are you saying that ObamaCare now has to go back to Congress for approval as a TAX?
That sure is interesting phrasing.
So I’ve been pondering this ruling and I’ve some thoughts.
The biggest thought is my suspicion that this whole thing....this and the Arizona ruling, were intentionally left vague because the Supreme Court did not want to do congress’ work.
Now lookit, I don’t know this. I speculate and I’ve only limited prognostication skills but am at least as good as Dick Morris I assert.
But in both of these cases there were “escape” clauses. In the Arizona case it was...”well sure the local cops can question someone’s citizenship if the person being questioned has been stopped for some other law breaking reason. But please feel free to bring up some actual real cases when this sort of thing goes on and we’ll rule again.”
Said ruling giving Arizona a choice to continue with their law and it damn did expose this admin’s plan to only enforce laws they like.
With this health care mandate....it’s ...”we’re not going to do congress’ job. That mandate thing is a tax and that’s our way of ruling for or against this thing. Everyone knows congress can pass all the taxes it wants. BUT we’re going to disallow the feds to punish states choosing to opt out of this thing. This way we figure congress will HAVE to deal with this thing cause...well, we’re leaving it up in the air. Even the Democrats will have to revisit this thing because what to do if all 50 states opt out?”
That’s how I interpret it all. I have no justification for it, I don’t think it’s right. On the other hand, why the hell shouldn’t congress do its job? They’re going to have to deal with this issue again, they’ll just have to.
Republicans are notorious for kicking stuff to the Supremes....could be the lack of testicles. Remember few of them would take a stand on McCain’s silly Campaign Finance Reform....a law we all prayed for daily and now feel so much better that it’s the law of the land. I know I sleep better every night knowing that my candidate last election spent all his political capital on such a stupid thing while the Communists were taking over.
I summarize....I think this is all an attempt to force congress to do its job. Why the Supremes felt such a thing was needed....I’m not sure why but it’s a good concept...congress doing its job.
The mind boggles.
And that's the upshot of this matter. The Commerce Clause has been eviscerated by this ruling. Now, the discussion is about a tax... on potentially anyone... in a recession..
My comments on today’s events:
http://www.tomhoefling.com/8/post/2012/06/tom-hoefling-to-hell-with-the-supreme-court.html
“Otherwise, Ibama still has to get congress to fund this monstrosity.”
If I recall correctly, a significant portion of the funding (the new funding, over and above funds in the existing appropriations) will come from the individual mandate “penalties”, and other hidden taxes/penalties contained in the 2,000 pages of ACA. The level of taxation and setting of minimum/maximum penalties will be left up to the Director of HHS.
In other words, unless Congress actually repeals the whole thing it appears to me that Obamacare will have its own funding mechanism built in.
What a mess!
Leni
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.