OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[NorthSideSox72]

Just to add for completeness, I still disagree with the concept that this bill opens the doors to "required purchase of a private product", on the grounds that any tax credit can be described as that based on the standard applied in this law.

Tax credits are optional and focused-to-population by nature, and cannot be considered the same way as taxes. If all people must pay in some form, then no tax credit (all people being credited in some form) exists as a parallel. So no, not really.

 

[Y2HH]

I agree they tried to get to clever with it and didnt want to use the ugly "tax" word.

 

And another ruling for the Federal Govt.

 

I think most people would agree Roberts is not the problem, it is some of the other Justices who would entirely rewrite history to somehow make a ruling that they support.

 

I think what is best for everyone is that it is over. Certainty is always better than uncertainty.

 

Exactly. And it's silly. And IMO, it's not a game of semantics when it comes to this. Otherwise precedent would be set so they can collect taxes in a millions of new, previously unthought of ways, without calling them taxes. It's much easier when you see a line item on everything you buy that says "tax", instead of the silliness that would begin to occur if such a bad precedent was set. It'd be just a few short years before you have no idea where your money is going or why it's going there.

 

IMO, Roberts is the only justice on that panel which I believe is actually fair minded versus basing his decisions strictly on his political viewpoints (see the rest of the supreme court for a good example of this). It's why every semi-partisan law automatically goes 4-4 and he's the deciding factor...always.

[NorthSideSox72]

Exactly. And it's silly. And IMO, it's not a game of semantics when it comes to this. Otherwise precedent would be set so they can collect taxes in a millions of new, previously unthought of ways, without calling them taxes. It's much easier when you see a line item on everything you buy that says "tax", instead of the silliness that would begin to occur if such a bad precedent was set. It'd be just a few short years before you have no idea where your money is going or why it's going there.

 

IMO, Roberts is the only justice on that panel which I believe is actually fair minded versus basing his decisions strictly on his political viewpoints (see the rest of the supreme court for a good example of this). It's why every semi-partisan law automatically goes 4-4 and he's the deciding factor...always.

Or Kennedy.

 

[StrangeSox]

IMO, Roberts is the only justice on that panel which I believe is actually fair minded versus basing his decisions strictly on his political viewpoints (see the rest of the supreme court for a good example of this). It's why every semi-partisan law automatically goes 4-4 and he's the deciding factor...always.

 

Kennedy's typically the "swing vote" in the Roberts court, not Roberts.

 

[StrangeSox]

Ginsburg cites Scalia's opinion in Raich (federal overrule of states on marijuana a-ok) in her concurrence:

 

The Necessary and Proper Clause “empowers Congress to enact laws in effectuation of its [commerce] powe[r] that are not within its authority to enact in isolation.” Raich, 545 U. S., at 39 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Hence, “[a] complex regulatory program . . . can survive a Commerce Clause challenge without a showing that every single facet of the program is independently and directly related to a valid congressional goal.” Indiana, 452 U. S., at 329, n. 17. “It is enough that the challenged provisions are an integral part of the regulatory program and that the regulatory scheme when considered as a whole satisfies this test.” Ibid. (collecting cases). See also Raich, 545 U. S., at 24–25 (A challenged statutory provision fits within Congress’ commerce authority if it is an “essential par[t] of a larger regulation of economic activity,” such that, in the absence of the provision, “the regulatory scheme could be undercut.” (quoting Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561)); Raich, 545 U. S., at 37 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are ‘reasonably adapted’ to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.”

 

I have no doubt this was done very intentionally.

[EvilMonkey]

Executive director of the DNC tweets: "It's Constitutional. b****es." And saw on Drudge someone from DNC also tweeted "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!" Way to be classy, Dems, as always.

 

[StrangeSox]

Orin Kerr: The Mandate Survives Because It's Not Really a Mandate

 

If I am reading the Chief Justice’s opinion correctly, the upshot is that real economic mandates are beyond the power of Congress. Congress can’t force action where there was none. The individual mandate is constitutional because despite the name, it’s not really a mandate. It’s called a mandate, but in practice it’s really just a small tax, and the enforcement mechanism is pretty light. So Congress lacks the power to say that you go to jail if you don’t buy health insurance. But Congress has the power to encourage you to get health insurance by imposing a tax if you don’t, as long as the tax isn’t so coercive that it’s really more than just a tax.

 

edit: it appears that Roberts buys into the activity/inactivity distinction, which is why he would not rule this constitutional on Commerce Clause/N&P grounds.

Edited June 28, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Exactly. And it's silly. And IMO, it's not a game of semantics when it comes to this. Otherwise precedent would be set so they can collect taxes in a millions of new, previously unthought of ways, without calling them taxes. It's much easier when you see a line item on everything you buy that says "tax", instead of the silliness that would begin to occur if such a bad precedent was set. It'd be just a few short years before you have no idea where your money is going or why it's going there.

 

IMO, Roberts is the only justice on that panel which I believe is actually fair minded versus basing his decisions strictly on his political viewpoints (see the rest of the supreme court for a good example of this). It's why every semi-partisan law automatically goes 4-4 and he's the deciding factor...always.

 

You are right, its not semantics. People shouldnt have to read between the lines or infer what the meaning is. If that is allowed, then Courts will become even more powerful and its even more problematic. Laws should be clear, a regular person should be able to read them and understand them. If they are not, they are poorly drafted.

 

As for the Justices, I dont know which are good or bad anymore. I think a some of them would be more open if they didnt feel that a certain few were never going to change their mind regardless of the situation.

 

I will say the only Justice who can change the Court's philosophy and actually bring it back to reason is Roberts. He is young and in charge, so he could make some changes.

[CanOfCorn]

Executive director of the DNC tweets: "It's Constitutional. b****es." And saw on Drudge someone from DNC also tweeted "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!" Way to be classy, Dems, as always.

 

Can't we just leave it at that? Does EVERYTHING have to be GOP vs Dems?

[StrangeSox]

Schadenfreude is never principled or classy.

[Soxfest]

Obama said in 2009 it is not a tax increase..................Supreme court today said it is. Obama lied imagine that!

[Soxbadger]

Supreme Court never said it was a "tax increase", they said it was a tax.

 

Oh you semantics.

[NorthSideSox72]

Executive director of the DNC tweets: "It's Constitutional. b****es." And saw on Drudge someone from DNC also tweeted "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!" Way to be classy, Dems, as always.

Classless and stupid. Of course, there is also a zero percent chance you would have called out the Republicans who would have done the same thing at the fringes.

 

Had to know there'd be some stupidity like this after the decision regardless of what it was.

 

 

[cabiness42]

Anybody buy the theory that the "losing" side in this decision will actually get a boost in November?

[Soxbadger]

I think losing is always a great motivator.

[NorthSideSox72]

Anybody buy the theory that the "losing" side in this decision will actually get a boost in November?

Not in this case, no.

 

[southsider2k5]

Anybody buy the theory that the "losing" side in this decision will actually get a boost in November?

 

I think this could fire up some of the far right wing that was tepid on Romney.

[Jenksismyhero]

So, based on this decision, there's basically nothing to stop Congress from implementing just about any sort of measure to collect funds from the populace so long as it looks like a tax. Hell, they don't even have to CALL it a tax. Just make it work like a tax.

 

*opens wallet wider*

[StrangeSox]

Anybody buy the theory that the "losing" side in this decision will actually get a boost in November?

Not really.

[StrangeSox]

I think this could fire up some of the far right wing that was tepid on Romney.

Those people were already very anti-Obama, though.

[Soxbadger]

So, based on this decision, there's basically nothing to stop Congress from implementing just about any sort of measure to collect funds from the populace so long as it looks like a tax. Hell, they don't even have to CALL it a tax. Just make it work like a tax.

 

*opens wallet wider*

 

The Supreme Court ruling is merely the status quo. Many believe Congress already had the power under the commerce clause to basically do whatever it wanted.

[southsider2k5]

Those people were already very anti-Obama, though.

 

But many of them wouldn't support Romney. That could change now.

[Soxbadger]

I agree that this could invigorate some Republicans.

 

Im not sure it will really matter, because in this election only a few states will matter, and I dont know how this is going over in those states.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The Supreme Court ruling is merely the status quo. Many believe Congress already had the power under the commerce clause to basically do whatever it wanted.

 

But this ruling does change that since Roberts got to explicitly reject the Commerce Clause justification.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

But many of them wouldn't support Romney. That could change now.

But they'll still be motivated by Obama hatred. That's always been cause #1. It's certainly possible, and that was my initial reaction, but I still think this is a net-gain for Obama in November. A loss would have been hugely demoralizing for a lot of dems.

 

Also the irony of a nationalized Romneycare being upheld as motivation to vote for Romney is pretty funny.