Judge Roberts changed his mind. Hmmm.

He concluded that government can tax non-behavior. That is simply astounding. Neither thoughtful nor consistent with his view of limiting government over-reach.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
The articles I read said the change came sometime during writing the decision. I think it's possible when he went to set the logic down on paper that he couldn't make it fit his legal philosophy, view of the law and jurisprudence. There were many legal experts that had had explored the tax justification prior to decision. It did not come out of nowhere and I think any reasonable man could see how Roberts arrived at the decision. It was a complicated case entering uncharted waters, I would hope a judge would take time in carefully arriving at the decision. Roberts desire for judicial restraint and view that the the tax argument made the law constitutional ultimately ruled over any ideological or political beliefs.

Or Obama sent a couple Rogue Secret Service agents over to threaten his kids and show him that they had the photos of him and Scalia in the Supreme Court bathroom...disrobed!
 
What constitutes a tax is the interesting crux of this case.

I don't think that the decision indicated that the government couldn't set up some type of stab at broad healthcare. That's allowable. So the question becomes how do you pay for it? You can't use the Commerce Clause to make people pay. But a fine, considered as a tax, is acceptable under a different constitutional aegis.

I wouldn't call it a tax. It is a fine, which is the price the government levies for a citizen's failure to abide by a directive. There is going to be a national health care package and the government is going to administer the financing of that edifice. Roberts apparently feels that the fine fits within acceptable definitions of a tax, and the government's ability to tax is not constitutionally closed off by this particular tax mechanism.

It's novel, but the problem before the court was novel. His perspective could not have been easily discerned before he handed it down. No predictions. I read something about Rove trying to vet Roberts and it made is sound that Rove was impressed by Roberts' stated position is disconnect from political sway. The article suggested that Rove failed to read the potential for Roberts to actually think for himself.

Meanwhile, while some will no doubt see red as the result of the word 'tax' being connected to 'Obamacare,' many are going to absorb this outcome as a win for Obama. Americans like winners for reasons that are not always altogether connected with the substance of the victory. People don't vote out of anger alone. This was a huge political victory for him, though he could still **** it up in a hundred ways.

The tinfoil hat readings from above are precious in every way. Don't you guys go changing on us, you hear.
 
I find it odd that many posters and the whole of the media have been caught up in the SC decision but have stopped debating the merits of the ACA. The bill didn't change overall. The way it passed through the Congress didn't change. The waivers that Pelosi's buddies and the unions didn't change.

You guys are looking at the shells on the beach while the tsunami is fast approaching.
 
Yes but your examples were for tax incentives not tax penalties. There is a difference. A tax incentive is only given if you pay taxes in the first place and do something that the government deems productive (take a mortgage, install solar panels, etc.). A tax penalty would be paid regardless of whether or not you are paying income taxes in the first place.

For instance, let's say that I have no income at all. Then the tax incentive for a mortage is moot. I cannot deduct the interest because I have no income to tax in the first place. However, a tax penalty on a non-behavior could now be levied even against folks that earn no income.
 
We keep quoting the word TAX. Is this a tax or isn't it? I'm frankly surprised that this is being argued. It seems clear to me that this is in fact a tax.

During the statements to the high court even the solicitor general seemed to think this was a tax:

Justice Elena Kagan: "would refusing to buy insurance constitute breaking the law?"

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top