Maybe Roberts Got it Right After All

Self | June 28, 2012 | Alberta's Child

[hoosiermama]

You are correct a tax cannot be challenged until it's implemented because until then no harm is done. However, a bill passed by the wrong house of congress, under false pretense IMO can be challenged. Check mate all over again.

[saleman]

Exactly right. Robert has painted them into a corner from which they cannot back out. Brilliant. Soon enough the Dems will realize what has happened. And they will scream to high heaven. But, since their own Justices ruled....

[dfwgator]

Soon enough the Dems will realize what has happened.

They know, they don't care, they'll just tell the dumb-downed electorate that the Supreme Court validated ObamaCare, and they'll buy it, and go back to watching American Idol....the people who actually pay attention to this stuff is a very small percentage of the population.

[Future Snake Eater]

Oops, never mind, it’s in the post: the Anti-Injunction Act.

[hoosiermama]

Under these circumstances they did not have the power, but gave it back to congress.

They cannot rule on whether a law is good or bad only if it’s in their realm of “constitutional”. In this case 0 and Co tried to pull a fast one, they manipulated the exsisting rules and law ala Alinsky and the CJ called them on it.....
Much better at stopping such behavior in the long run, then just slapping their wrists.....
and it brought the lying, cheating SOB who tried to tax us to death to the front.

Stop being mad at the messeenger and get into action to eliminate the problem....the RATS.

[Future Snake Eater]

However, a bill passed by the wrong house of congress, under false pretense IMO can be challenged.

You would think so.

The first question I had when I first heard this was, "Who is responsible for overturning passage of the bill if it was passed improperly?" Does it have to go to SCOTUS? Can the Speaker do it? Does it take Presidential action? Who?

[mom.mom]

I am trying to deal with my Roberts hatred, but after reading the ruling I think he is saying:

This is a tax. You can call it anything you want to. If you are all stupid enough to believe somehow that it isn’t (God help us all) then pay it and shut up. We can’t rule against a tax that you all agreed to. We can’t rule against a bad law unless it is unconstitutional and that is a big test. Fix it.

We can’t depend on the SC to conservatize our legislation.

[hoosiermama]

Have been asking that all morning.

Who has the power to overturn a law that was beyond the perimeters of the Rules of Congress? Can it be voided? Resubmitted? Is it covered under “Rules of Order” Now that it is ruled a TAX by the SCOTUS, and was instigated in the Senate, who rights that wrong? Lawsuit? By whom against whom?

[Future Snake Eater]

Good question...but we need to stop looking around for someone else to go too.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

How about we use the tools at our disposal before resorting to violent overthrow?

[hoosiermama]

Just stop the quote at ALTER....that’s by voting.

[Future Snake Eater]

I agree, I’m just getting tired of all of these would-be Patrick Henry types sprouting up, talking about things they don’t understand and don’t have the first clue how to plan and execute.

We still have many options available to us. It’s not even close to being over.

[Alberta's Child]

According to Wikipedia, ObamaCare was originally introduced as (emphasis is mine): "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009.

[Alberta's Child]

I'll stand with Scalia, Alito and Thomas. They had a great dissent in this case. But theirs was really a decision for a different legal challenge against ObamaCare on different legal grounds. In fact, they can just change the docket number on their paperwork and use it again as the majority opinion in the next case. :-)

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe b/c the tax hasn’t been implemented yet? I can’t remember the court case, but some 1870s decision says that a tax can’t be challenged in court until it’s been implemented.

That's exactly right. It's not just a tax, either. Any legal action has to be brought by someone who has the proper legal standing to file the lawsuit. And in order to have proper legal standing you have to be able to demonstrate that you've been harmed in some way by someone's actions. Almost by definition (since there may be unusual cases that I haven't thought about here), a tax that isn't implemented for another two years isn't something that causes harm today.

The rationale for a court to take a hands-off approach in that case is simple: What happens if the legislative body that passed the law in the first place turns around and changes it before it is ever implemented? Why waste the court's time on something like that?

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks, Orange. I’m honored to see some great discussion and debate on this thread — and even most of those who don’t quite understand what I’m getting at probably have more brains than I do. LOL.

[matt1234]

In the common vernacular, you are describing a “punt.” The judicial branch is supposed to be coequal, which presumes the justices fulfill their constitutional role with due diligence and adherence to their oaths. These standards are not met by simply punting the ball back to the legislative branch.

[GlockThe Vote]

Bingo v

the kneepad crew spinning this are liars. Roberts could have easily sided w Kennedy, Scalia Alito and Roberts that neither TJE commerce clause or the tax power can force as citizen into commerce.

He failed.

FU GWB
FUJR
FUBO