Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Four New Challenges to Obamacare: Can Any of Them Possibly Win in Court?
Townhall.com ^ | October 31, 2013 | Mike Shedlock

Posted on 10/31/2013 6:32:12 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2013 6:32:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Geeze. Too bad we only have one political party; we could have defunded it with an opposition

Well, at least the guys got in some texting time and manicures at the Sebelius hearing yesterday. A lot of empty words


2 posted on 10/31/2013 6:40:20 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s a law that isn’t being applied evenly and fairly, and therefore I’m not playing. Exempt one, exempt all, or toss this fascist piece of crap.


3 posted on 10/31/2013 6:50:34 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They’d win in any court that doesn’t have “kangaroo” as a prefix.

However, in the era of the Obamadork and his West Wing Clown Show of Felon/Cretins, there are not many courts fortunate enough to have avoided the appendage.


4 posted on 10/31/2013 6:50:48 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The second attack is even sillier. After all, the law does not force anyone to take birth-control pills or undergo pregnancy screening. If a person does not want those procedures, the remedy is easy: Don't take birth control pills and don't undergo medical procedures you don't want!

Mike Shedlock is an idiot. Here, he is saying that PAYING for contraceptive and abortion coverage (in your premium) doesn't abridge one's religious rights, no matter whether such things are considered sin in your religion.

He is stupidly ignoring the forced providing of money to support these things in order to focus on the personal choice whether to use them. If one pays into a fund to hire a hit man, one is guilty of murder, under the law. But to Shedlock, if the victim is not yet outside the womb, it's no longer murder.

5 posted on 10/31/2013 6:51:26 AM PDT by MortMan (We've gone from ‘failure is not an option’ to ‘failure is not an obstacle’.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Courts packed with liberal activist judges, they are required by the liberal agenda to uphold this law regardless of the cost.


6 posted on 10/31/2013 7:03:53 AM PDT by Farnsworth (Now playing in America: "Stupid is the new normal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Unilaterally granting waivers and delays to a law passed by Congress, to benefit your friends and supporters is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


7 posted on 10/31/2013 7:31:48 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Shedlock is a big government liberal who pretends to be libertarian when it suits him. Take a look at the comment section of this blog post of his: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/01/gallup-poll-on-obamas-proposals-to.html

He spents a good amount of space in the comme ts calling his readers a bunch of nutters for not wanting to restrict gun owner rights. He lost most of his readers that day.

8 posted on 10/31/2013 7:52:58 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Waste of time. It would have to make it’s way past the supreme court and obamacare isn’t going to be struck down there until the NSA is ripped out at the root and burned down to ash. It’s a little obvious that they used the NSAto compromise roberts. Why else would he go from visibly objecting to a state of the union dress down from obama to changing his vote to support obamacare? Other whistleblowers before Snowden have said the NSA were wiretapping high court judges.


9 posted on 10/31/2013 7:59:46 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Too bad the GOP put up clowns like Todd Akin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock, Ken Buck, Tommy Thompson, Connie Mack, etc. or we’d actually have the votes today to make something happen. Too many on this forum seem obsessed with purging the Senate of the Republicans who have actually demonstrated an ability to win election in their states, rather than putting up solid candidates that can knock out the ultra liberal Dems. There are some great opportunities coming up in 2014 (LA,AR,WV,MO,NC,SD,NH,AK etc.). Let’s not blow it by putting up inexperienced baffoons who walk straight into the Liberal media’s minefields and torpedo their election chances.


10 posted on 10/31/2013 8:47:22 AM PDT by pkajj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
ObamaCare imposes a “fine” on people who do not purchase health insurance.

Last week, I read that the ObamaCare law specifically does not allow the IRS to collect the ObamaCare fine via a civil or criminal lawsuit.

Thus, according to this report, the IRS cannot garnish your paycheck or put liens on your property to collect the ObamaCare fine.

According to the article, the law allows the IRS to collect the fine ONLY by subtracting money from a person's tax refund.

Thus, if you are careful about your withholding and estimated taxes, if you have NO tax refund due at the end of the year, the IRS has no way to collect your fine.

Has anyone seen a follow up on that story?

Seems almost too good to be true.

If true, however, it raises an important legal question.

Chief Justice John Roberts upheld ObamaCare by claiming that the “fine” is actually a “tax.”

But, if the IRS has NO coercive statutory power to collect John Robert's “tax,” how can he still claim that the “fine” is a “tax?”

With almost no effort, 100% of the people who are “fined” can avoid paying the “fine.”

11 posted on 10/31/2013 9:09:10 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pkajj

Don’t forget the clown that got the final vote from Weird Al Franken...Norm Coleman.


12 posted on 10/31/2013 9:09:25 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
An excellent point. The rats do not intend to lose another presidential election, nor let scotus stand in their way.

Congress, including the GOPe have no problem with this.

Can reform and the salvation of our republic possible emerge from DC?

13 posted on 10/31/2013 11:21:47 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Subsidize one, subsidize all and consider that subsidizing any Federal employees means they are being subsidized twice, once for their salary,provided out of tax monies and which exceeds similar positions in the private sector and once again for their benefits, which are greater than those in the private sector. Plus other perks they may get for being elected officials or staff of elected officials.


14 posted on 10/31/2013 11:53:05 AM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

That was put in there to coerce the EITC recipients. Their tax return has nothing to do with their listed exemptions or tax rate and is simply a subsidy based on their household size and AGI.


15 posted on 10/31/2013 11:56:44 AM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal
I don't understand your comment.

I'm talking about fines for not purchasing health insurance.

According to the article, the IRS cannot file a civil or criminal lawsuit against ANYONE who fails to pay the O-Care fine.

No lawsuit means no jail time, no garnishment, no seizures, no liens.

They have only one way to collect the fine if it is not paid - if someone gets a tax refund.

Millions of people get refunds that are not related to EITC.

16 posted on 10/31/2013 1:30:38 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Income tax-paying workers can control their exemptions and thereby affect their withholding, making certain not to have a tax refund due that could be confiscated.

Part time, low income workers who do not pay income taxes, instead get their withholding returned and a check for an amount for each dependent.

The taxpaying workers do not wish to have a refund that is actually an interest-free loan to the government.

Non-taxpaying workers see the entitlement known as an EITC for what it is and want it to be as large as possible.

The EITC recipient can be coerced by a threat against their *refund* and will comply in order to not endanger that *refund*.

The taxpayer will manage their withholding to avoid having a refund and therefore, will not be coerced.

Seemed clear to me. Sorry if it wasn’t.


17 posted on 10/31/2013 1:40:20 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

- - - Chief Justice John Roberts
18 posted on 10/31/2013 1:51:31 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

On that, I agree. And I am getting to like obamacare more every day. The more misery it causes those who inflicted it and Obama on me, the better I like it.


19 posted on 10/31/2013 1:54:38 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal
Now I see your point.

Coercion against the EITC’s is unavoidable, which I had not thought about.

20 posted on 10/31/2013 5:36:59 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson