Supreme Court's Healthcare Ruling Taxes Logic

LA Times ^ | June 29, 2012 | Tom Miller

[Blackyce]

Roberts first concluded that the individual mandate was not a tax when it came to jurisdictional issues under the Anti-Injunction Act (thereby allowing the court to decide the case). But, like the Decepticon villains in a "Transformer" movie, the mandate could convert into a tax for constitutional authority purposes. This flew in the face of the Affordable Care Act's history and language. President Obama himself once insisted the law didn't impose a tax.

[Blackyce]

This is exactly the issue that I'm struggling to understand. I don't mind that Roberts' went off the reservation as much as I mind that he didn't even bother to try to make sense.

[HerrBlucher]

No, he did not make sense at all, and he is far too smart to be that stupid. I think by doing this he is signaling that he made the decision for reasons other than strictly upholding the constitution.

[NavVet]

Anytime a court starts the analysis by determining the desired result and then works backwards to come up with an opinion that supports the desired result, you are likely to get opinions that read as if the Justice was on strong Meds at the time of the decision.

[Mike Darancette]

I think Roberts did what he did to protect the Commerce Clause

[Blackyce]

Was the commerce clause under threat?

[HerrBlucher]

He could have done that by throwing the whole thing out too, in agreement with alito, kennedy, scalia, and thomas.

[Don Corleone]

you are likely to get opinions that read as if the Justice was on strong Meds at the time of the decision.

Roberts IS on strong meds!

[no-s]

I don't mind that Roberts' went off the reservation as much as I mind that he didn't even bother to try to make sense.

Actually they don't have to make sense, either. Fagghhh - what happened to severability? He wrote the opinion, he could have tacked all that stuff on and still voted against it. Here was an opportunity to demolish a huge facade of government overreach resting on a single faulty foundation block, but he just painted it pretty and fixed the foundation. Carry on, happy would-be tyrants! Roberts has shown you the way!

[epithermal]

“Conservatives should have used the time that the court was deliberating to formulate attractive legislative proposals to both repeal and replace this unpopular law.”

I get tired of reading crap like this in these liberal rags. Their nanny state mentality precludes them from seeing that replacing one law with another is not the answer. There are many good conservative options on the table to reform health care that don’t require growing government.

[itsahoot]

I think Roberts did what he did to protect the Commerce Clause

I think he put limitations on the Commerce Clause because Buzzy wrote a dissenting opinion wailing on Roberts for failing to extend the power of the Commerce Clause.

Anyone that thinks we will ever go back to the 50's this should remove that delusion. There really was a 50's I would know, I graduated from High School in 1956. I had Joined the National in 1954 at the age of 16, went from there into active Army, then to US Navy. I quit, yes quit in 1963, for a variety of PC crappo reasons. I loved my ship and crew members and am in touch with a couple of fellow survivors to this day.

Hard to imagine that it wasn't time wasted. I used to try hard to convince WW II Vets that their time wasn't wasted, now I guess we need someone to convince us of the same thing. God Bless America.

[Verginius Rufus]

Stockholm Syndrome.

[Mike Darancette]

Was the commerce clause under threat?

Yes, I'm sure the 4 libs would have had no problem in affirming based on the commerce clause thus giving congress immense powers to regulate everyday things.

[Mike Darancette]

Kennedy would have not gone along then. I think Kennedy and Roberts swapped places.