Author Topic:  (Read 1114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
« on: October 06, 2013, 11:48:14 PM »

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2013, 01:49:55 AM »
Is this the appropriate time to reference the now infamous Hillary Rodham Clinton remark...
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,342
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2013, 09:35:59 PM »

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,168
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2013, 10:09:07 PM »

Origination, Smorigination.

We don need no stinkin Constitution!



/s


"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,372
  • Chief Dork
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2013, 11:39:13 PM »
Might be an interesting argument; I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that it's the winning argument, tho'

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2013, 12:19:46 AM »
Might be an interesting argument; I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that it's the winning argument, tho'

Why?  The solicitor general argued that it was NOT a tax, the only person calling it a tax was John Roberts when he re-wrote the bill from the bench. 

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • Krampus
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,252
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2013, 05:57:37 AM »
There is also another related angle that I brought up back when Roberts made his ruling:

I.9.1 expressly states that any capitation tax must be distributed equally. (The 16th Amendment says you can tax income, but it only applies to income.) The individual mandate is an unusual hybrid: if you are poor, it is a capitation tax but if you have significant income it is a flat income tax. Because the capitation tax also exempts anyone who buys (or is fortunate enough to land a job that offers) health insurance, it is not distributed equally and, because it is not expressly an income tax for those under the minimum threshold, it is also unconstitutional.

In his rush to declare Obamacare constitutional as a tax, Roberts blatantly ignored the criteria for taxes found in the Constitution. He will likely continue to ignore them, since the courts have consistently rejected taxpayer standing and Roberts is no exception.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 74,115
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2013, 01:33:25 PM »

Why was it not challenged as unconstitutional immediately in the Courts?


Surely the supreme soviet was aware of that when they said it was a tax and approved it anyway.  It seems highly unlikely to me they will reverse themselves on that point. 10631
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,036
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2013, 01:58:32 PM »
Surely the supreme soviet was aware of that when they said it was a tax and approved it anyway.  It seems highly unlikely to me they will reverse themselves on that point. 10631

NO! The supreme court unconstitutionally REWROTE the thing to make it a tax! Both the president and the congressional democrats had argued all along that it was NOT a tax up to that point!

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 74,115
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2013, 12:03:00 PM »
That is exactly my point.  They knew the law and still approved the debacle and so you can bet they aren't going to overturn themselves.  It would have been like Justice Taney overturning the Dred Scott case in which he wrote the majority decision, saying "oops, I was wrong."  It will not happen. :pigs fly:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,213
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2013, 12:28:06 PM »
Why?  The solicitor general argued that it was NOT a tax, the only person calling it a tax was John Roberts when he re-wrote the bill from the bench.

In some ways, I think he was trying to hand opponents a gift in doing this but we failed to act on it. I'm not sure his reasoning for switching his view at the last moment (as in the way the SCOTUS briefs were written) but by doing this, I think he was trying to sneak in a loophole that could be exploited.

That being said, no one of importance on our side saw it.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2013, 02:26:49 PM »
NO! The supreme court unconstitutionally REWROTE the thing to make it a tax! Both the president and the congressional democrats had argued all along that it was NOT a tax up to that point!
correct.
And it still isn't a tax, despite what Roberts said.
I know that's just me whistling in the winds but it doesn't change the fact that Roberts rewrote the law, just like you said.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2013, 02:28:12 PM »
In some ways, I think he was trying to hand opponents a gift in doing this but we failed to act on it. I'm not sure his reasoning for switching his view at the last moment (as in the way the SCOTUS briefs were written) but by doing this, I think he was trying to sneak in a loophole that could be exploited.

That being said, no one of importance on our side saw it.
I think you give Roberts waaaaay too much credit ...for something he never intended.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,808
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2013, 02:47:44 PM »
In some ways, I think he was trying to hand opponents a gift in doing this but we failed to act on it. I'm not sure his reasoning for switching his view at the last moment (as in the way the SCOTUS briefs were written) but by doing this, I think he was trying to sneak in a loophole that could be exploited.

That being said, no one of importance on our side saw it.

What.....Justice Roberts didn't have a cell phone?  email?   Bullsh*t!
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf