Posted on 06/29/2012 7:57:35 PM PDT by NoLibZone
First it was a penalty. Then it was a tax. Now it's a penalty again.
The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul's most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court's argument -- even though that argument alone spared President Obama's law.
The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress' authority to tax.
Ergo, the fine is officially a "tax" in the eyes of the court. The law stands.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/#ixzz1zF2AwhpF
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If its not a tax then the ruling must fall.
They are pushing our noses in it.
Why can’t they just walk RobertsTaxCare across the southern border and be done with it?
Once SCOTUS got to the point where it declared the law a TAX, it should have thrown the case out. My understanding is that under the Anti Injunction Act of 1867, any case that protests a tax cannot be heard until someone actually pays the tax. Does anyone know any different?
Obama’s own lawyer argued that it was a tax. SCOTUS agreed. So what is the complaint again?
This is just flat out awesome. Romney has a lock on the Presidency, Obama is toast, and John Roberts is an American conservative hero. The only thing that could make this better would be for ICE to rebel against Obama and start cooperating with Sheriff Joe again.
Shucking and jiving...shheeeet...ain’t no thang.
I think you’re right about that as far as it goes. They mentioned it in the “executive summary” as follows (page 2):
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does notbar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–15.”
I laughed watching Axlerod explaining to Stephy that OC was a penalty and not a tax and that Romney was the architect...It’s like they are going to run away from this during the campaign.
The double-talk coming out of those SOB’s is incredible. And the media buys every word of it. THEIR ORAL ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT SAID IT WAS A TAX!!! Now all of a sudden they’re claiming it’s not a tax, again. Maybe they’re being “nuanced” again and we’re just too stupid to get it. sarc/
But if healthcare is a right, then if I am standing on a glacier in the wilderness with nobody in sight, I still have healthcare?????...without having to pay for it?????....why do I have to pay for my rights??????...and if I don’t pay for my rights, why would I be labeled a felon????
I just read pages 11-15 of the Roberts opinion and my head is spinning. Here’s how it finishes up on page 15:
“Indeed, amicus’s earlier observation that the Code requires assessable penalties to be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes” makes little sense if assessable penalties are themselves taxes. In light of the Code’s consistent distinction between the terms “tax” and “assessable penalty,” we must accept the Government’s interpretation: §6201(a) instructs the Secretary that his authority to assess taxes includes the authority to assess penalties, but it does not equate assessable penalties to taxes for other purposes.
The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”
So as I (almost) understand it, because of the way the act was worded, to where it didn’t specifically call the penalty a tax, it’s a penalty from the standpoint of the Anti-Injunction Act, but it’s a tax in the eyes of the Constitution because the interstate commerce explanation would make it unconstitutional. So by the definition of SCOTUS, the only way Obamacare is constitutional is if the penalty part of it is operated as a tax.
THAT means that Obama raised taxes on everyone when he promised to only raise taxes on “fat cats.” His spinmeisters are backpedaling furiously, because once Romney starts hammering this point home, Obama’s going to lose a LOT of voters.
If you don’t pay for a health care account with a health care provider, then you pay a fine to the IRS that’s collected along with your taxes. But it’s not really a fine because SCOTUS has defined it as a tax.
I forgot to post a link to the decision. It’s a 193-page PDF document.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
So, we knew 12 months ago that the IRS was hiring agents for “Obamacare enforcement”. But it wasn’t called a tax until Roberts called it a tax. Oral arguments began after we knew about the IRS hiring spree. This tells me the fix was in and Roberts was complicit. Thoughts?
Robert is no conservative hero. Robert have made it difficult for Conservatives on the small chance that we’re successful in repealing the law after the nov election
Based on today’s official pronouncements from the WH if I were a party to the case I would immediately prepare and in the next 24 days file an appeal for reconsideration with SCOTUS. These pronouncements are a thumb in the eye of the Court and the Court members, most particularly CJ Roberts should have the opportunity to revisit this issue in light of the WH’s statements.
I disagree, but I respect your right to post your opinion. Here are the possible outcomes as I see them:
1.) SCOTUS says Obamacare is unconstitutional. Obama gets to whine and play the underdog because the big bad conservative justices are picking on him. Winner: Obama. He gets a second term.
2.) SCOTUS lets Obamacare stand but only if it’s seen as a tax. Now Obama has to try to explain why he’s raising everyone’s taxes when he said he wouldn’t. Winner: Romney. Obama schedules two moving vans to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20.
I have heard a lot of views both pro-Roberts and anti-Roberts and at this point in time I have no idea how this is all going to work out.
However, I have not totally disregarded the idea that this might be the most interesting and potentially damaging move AGAINST Obama that Roberts could have made.
It’s too early to tell, but I think the Obamanites victory lap is already showing a lot of stress and paranoia. One thing for sure, this issue is NOT going to go away.
It’s defining this election and it’s doing so in ways that are not going to be very comfortable for Obama in the months ahead.
Criminal Insanity - Publicly Promoting Illegal Acts
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.