I was reading the SCOTUSblog live blog with CNN on in the background:
CNN is getting it wrong, if SCOTUSblog is right. They're headlining "Individual Mandate Struck Down."...CNN was fumbling and blathering. I guess they have to fill every second of real time. A live blog seems as though it's real-time, but the participants have the ability to read something and study it without writing anything. But that's not enough of an excuse for the TV news failure. They need one person to talk, but several others could be quickly reading parts of the opinion and ready to go on camera when they have something to say.
From SCOTUSblog. "The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read." From CNN: Blitzer says "let's take a deep breath... if you're watching this on Twitter... momentous... more information...."
I'm still annoyed at CNN for wasting my time — and playing with my emotions — back on June 5th when the polls closed in the Wisconsin recall election and they were insisting that the race was too close to call. It's razor close. After an hour of such hand-wringing, they call it for Walker, and in the end, he wins by 7 percentage points.
Fox News got it wrong too, it should be noted. Both today and on June 5th.
पोस्ट्स
११५ टिप्पण्या:
Seems like every outlet screws up with premature obits from time to time.
I don't get how they managed to screw this up so badly.
Ok, yes, the opinion was complex. But simply looking at who was in the majority (i.e., all the left-wing justices plus Roberts) should have been a clue that the law was upheld.
I don't understand the constant need for a scoop with a story like this. Had they taken an additional 2 minutes (or hired SCOTUSblog), they would have gotten it correct. How can it matter to be the first on a story that everyone gets at the same time. It's not like they did any investigation here, or did anything anyone else didn't do (except get it wrong).
Here is the penalty on that "tax" you are blathering on about, Ann:
"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
And now we have Michigan Republicans calling for armed revolution. Idiots. Idiots that you and other people egg on with your distortions.
Alpha: Civil penalties still apply, which can accrue quite nicely.
Also, the waiver is only for timely paying a penalty. So, so long as you DO pay. If you elect to never pay, then you are not protected. But, nice attempt. D+, but A for effort.
"I'm still annoyed at CNN for wasting my time — and playing with my emotions..."
One can understand why you took it personally. You were probably the only viewer.
"Dewey Defeats Truman". So what; it happens. It's not the first time, it won't be the last.
This is why people need to remember to step back and wait for news and analysis to develop.
Somebody be smokin' sumpin:
And a half dozen top on-air reporters and producers within the esteemed news organization told BuzzFeed they are furious at what they see as yet another embarrassment to a network stuck in third place in the cable news race, and torn between an identity as the leader in hard news and the success of their opinionated, personality-driven rivals, Fox News and MSNBC.
@gerry: It's a stretch to call MSNBC a success. I mean, the Food Network kicks their butts.
"One can understand why you took it personally. You were probably the only viewer."
Hell, even my socialist/communist brother-in-law has switched to MSNBC. CNN, the communist news network is no longer communist enough for the true believers.
I was watching Fox News. They got it wrong for about the first 5 minutes, then they were saying the mandate was "upheld" as a tax.
Who watches TV?
You were probably the only viewer.
Now that's just mean.
How scary is that the President gets his information from the MSM?
Drudge had it wrong too.
What was it that Donald Rumsfeld said? "First reports are almost always wrong!"
Nothing new here.
The way Rush explains the mix up is that the initial writing for the majority later morphed into the minority.. but the now minority kept the majority sounding language.
Ergo.. "the entire law is unconstitutional" as a minority opening.
Thats one theory.
Doesn't the President have any important contacts in Washington? Was he on the phone with Sarah Jessica Parker to get the scoop?
AlphaLiberal said...
Here is the penalty on that "tax" you are blathering on about,
Hilarious.
Yes, stupid, your Sort of a God President asserted it wasn't a tax, so you continue to put it in quotes.
Idiot.
In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section..
Supposing Alpha reads his own writing.. or not.. there is a big.. loophole right there..
Geee, Ann, now we're into creating a thread about the president looking at a split screen as the coverage of the decision was being announced?
Instead of reading a blog?
Good grief...is there ANYTHING this wingnut crowd can't find to whine about...as if this is some kind of HUGE news??
You're just throwing chum to your sycophants...and you know it, too.
Jay - I think he actually said it was not a tax "increase."
If you really want to hold him to what was said.
Professor there is a connection as to why Drudge chose the Roberts picture he chose and the mandate..
Time for a Drudge thing.. what do you call that when drudge tries to tell a story with a collage?
I'm having a mental block.
bagoh20 - "How scary is that the President gets his information from the MSM?"
First of all, that is a ridiculous comment.
But just for fun, tell us where you get yours...and if you mention Fox or Limbaugh or Drudge or any of the other talking heads or blog sites...they're ALL part of the MSM.
Duh.
Msnbc is looking for a ratings jump with the announcement that the Congress is going to impose a "tax" on those who watch "that other station".
POS Roberts meanwhile enjoyed his fiddle lessons.
One thing I think we can all agree on in today's ruling.
Teddy can finally rest.
Love sounds more like Hate today.
Teddy can finally rest.
You better make sure to wake him in November.. you are going to need him.
Love I assume your new here but using "Duh" around here is associated with shear idiocy that no other attributes will overcome.
Teddy can finally rest.
Mary Jo Kopechne found him in Hell and got her revenge?
Is anyone on the Left outraged at this narrow 5-4 decision? Should we look to expand the court now?
Hilarious. The Left is bending over backwards today to take back all the nasty things said about Roberts.
("Racist! Oh, wait, CNN got the headline wrong... Praise Wise Doctor Roberts!")
Once again ANN scoops the world.
Not bad.
AlphaLiberal said...
Here is the penalty on that "tax" you are blathering on about, Ann:
"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
And the IRS, for whom I once worked, will tell you that collection of the income tax relies on voluntary compliance.
Anybody volunteer not to pay their taxes?
If so, when do they get out of Atlanta?
PS That this is a "tax" is the only way this farce survived, so Alpha should speak with more affection toward it.
But Alpha's nasty tone in using the word makes me feel that the Lefties are finally starting to get it through their pointy little heads that John Roberts did them no favors today.
Why are we hating on Roberts? Because he said something we don't like?
garage mahal said...
One thing I think we can all agree on in today's ruling.
Teddy can finally rest.
Funny, I don't think there's much rest in Hell.
Love new here? Love goes way back under several alias'; Jeremy, LuckyOldson, and Lord knows who else.
Roberts is no chief.
Roberts is the guy everybody shows up when they hear hes going to be there for dinner...
He always picks up the check.
He should have been firing his Attorney General!
Eric Holder, you are the first Attorney General in history to be found in Contempt of Congress.
What are you going to do now?
"I'm going to Disney World!"
Things Democrats can look forward to "taxing"
Soda pop(except for watermelon flavored Arizona Tea)that would be racist
candy (except for skittles)racist again
guns
ammo
free speech(intertwined with the guns and ammo)
contempt of congress charges
tea party protests
town hall meetings
breathing
not buying chevy volts
not belonging to a union
being caucasion
being Christian
being male(white obviously)
AGW...oops I mean anti-AGW
meat
fur
leather
pets(animal slavery)
thinking
private schooling
home schooling
self sufficient homes
farms
Carnifex, you clearly don't know what an excise tax is.
I also love your sky is falling we can tax anything argument.
LOL. Look at all the lately-missing losers who have suddenly appeared since this decision was announced... "Love", "AlphaLiberal", "Dose of Sanity"! It's like a bunch of blowflies found a fresh flop of horse shit!
Hey Palladian.
It's just odd timing coupled with wanting to see what Ann had to say. I've been gone the last few months with graduation, admission to the bar, work, etc. Cooled off a bit now, so I wandered back.
I'm not sure how hopeful this decision was, especially with the new limitations to the commerce clause and spending powers. The CJ shocked me today too!
Dose of Sanity said...
I also love your sky is falling we can tax anything argument.
Considering today's ruling, it demonstrates a lot about your intellect that you would utter this phrase.
Jay, did you read today's ruling?
Also, look at his list.
You should be able to see my point.
Palladian said...
LOL. Look at all the lately-missing losers who have suddenly appeared since this decision was announced... "Love", "AlphaLiberal", "Dose of Sanity"! It's like a bunch of blowflies found a fresh flop of horse shit
What's even funnier, is they have no clue what the decision or ACA says.
Note:
1. Obama's argument that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance was rejected by the court.
2. The law was upheld on a basis — the taxing power — that the Administration didn’t advance.
A big "win" for Obama, Mr. Super-Duper smart Constitutional Law Lecturer!
I love the.. cosmic justice of this..
Roberts is in the position of enforcing an understanding otherwise known as a gag rule that would prevent his flip flop from getting out.
I know its not much.. but the hour is long from here till November.
@ Jay
Yeesh, read my posts before you go all "he doesn't know what it means" on me.
That's what happens when you believe anything Jeffrey Toobin says.
@Dose of Sanity
I know one thing. POS Roberts saved Zero and Pelosi and reids ass so he wouldn;t lose any dinner party invitations. You know that spot in hell beside Teddy? Roberts has one in a lower Bolgia for traitors.
For that POS to come out and say, "Everyone misspoke, it IS a tax", is so disingenuous as to be sickening.
And shame on you all for trying to make it seem like somew kind of Solomons wisdom. That's complete crap. He did just like every other liberal judge, he legislated from the bench. It's not his choice to put words into the law as passed. His choice is to say, yea or nay, that law is constituitional. Anymore is over reach, just like every other branch of government does.
Ask me if I am surprised that the head of one of the legs of our system of government, the person who relies on the rest of that overweening government to follow his dictates, his okay with that over weening?
Disgusted yes, surprised, yea, I actually thought he had some kind of moral compass. Apparently he gave that up for cocktail parties and not having bad things printed about him.
And after this ruling tell me where I'm wrong in my list?
Democrats: Because communist Russia didn't have "Us" to get it right.
Jay, the administration did not merely "not advance" the taxing power argument, but the Solicitor General in oral argument admitted that the mandate was unconstitutional as a tax as an inpermissable "direct tax".
Speak for yourself, white man
Don't worry about me phx, I know for whom I speak, if you don't get something, please don't comment like you do.
If Mortimer were awake, he'd agree with me.
Good lord..
When you have Kennedy on your side.. you know something went terribly wrong.
That's what happens when you believe anything Jeffrey Toobin says.
Thats why they sequester juries.
Maybe we can hire Turley to propose a Supreme Secuestration Plan prior to controversial desision.
Ps. @Dose
Apparently "Irony" and "Satire" wasn't taught at your school. Sad, so sad.
Dose of Sanity said...
@ Jay
Yeesh, read my posts before you go all "he doesn't know what it means" on me.
I read your post and you're an idiot.
In other threads today, we've also been treated to the return of LoafingOaf (who never really recovered from the fateful bite of Sarah Palin's pussy in 2008) and the troll formerly known as "Florida", who's gibbering and shrieking about leading a violent insurrection and wishing death upon John Roberts' family.
I'm mostly amused by some of our run-of-the-mill "liberals", who seem happy with a potentially gigantic and fatal incursion of Federal power into the most intimate spheres of private life, just so long as it pisses off the right-wing "bitches".
Because the power of our government is really just a tool with which to bludgeon and burden your domestic enemies.
Because the power of our government is really just a tool with which to bludgeon and burden your domestic enemies.
Well FDR certainly thought so. And this is an FDR-like expansion of federal power...
for the time being.
Pps.
On another thread I started a list of things the government had no usiness in. I'd like to add...
Who I sleep with is none of their business
what I drive ...
what I read...
what I say...
where I travel...
who I associate with...
Democrats: We approve of all free speech, as long as we approve of it.
What happened to people who were willing to discuss the issues and not just flame it up like every other message board on the net.
Cmon folks. Do better! I'm happy to discuss the merits or the policy arguments.
The lure of being well thought of?
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?
I find it kind of interesting that Obama was watching Fox News.
Who I sleep with is none of their business
what I drive ...
what I read...
what I say...
where I travel...
who I associate with...
What you read, what you say, who you associate with...I believe those are pretty clearly noted in the bill of rights.
Driving/Travel affect other people, and use public resources. I'd say that's appropriate area for some government, wouldn't you? :)
Revenant - "I find it kind of interesting that Obama was watching Fox News."
It said it was a split screen with a number of networks visible.
But I would have to assume he watches all of them at one time or another.
Amazing, huh? A man who doesn't just watch one network...like most here?
What happened to people who were willing to discuss the issues and not just flame it up like every other message board on the net.
It was bad law before and its bad law now.. we the voters just have to go back to the drawing board.. and not let another democrat have it all like Obama had in 2009.. the white house, both houses, a supreme nomination and a nobel prise.
Dose of Sanity said...
What happened to people who were willing to discuss the issues and not just flame it up like every other message board on the net.
Mind you, from the author of:
Dose of Sanity said...
Carnifex, you clearly don't know what an excise tax is.
I also love your sky is falling we can tax anything argument.
Moron much?
Carnifex - "Democrats: We approve of all free speech, as long as we approve of it."
And this relates to what??
Who I sleep with is none of their business
Actually it is, especially if your employer doesn't provide health insurance with contraceptive coverage...
Jay - You're such a dick.
Love said...
Jay - You're such a dick.
Whatever, goofball.
I also love your sky is falling we can tax anything argument.
OK, Dose, I'll bite. What cannot be taxed such that the tax becomes tantamount to requiring that a thing be bought or an activity be engaged?
On what basis is the power to tax inactivity limited by this decision?
@ Jay
No promises not to be snarky.
I sorry if you missed the point that my reprimand of Carnifex's "LOOK AT ALL THE THINGS WE CAN TAX NOW" was to state that many of those could be taxed previously (excise) and that many of those items can't be taxed now (sky is falling panic).
It's okay to talk about the fact that the tax power was used today, but as far as an "expansion" goes, I'm not convinced it IS that much of an expansion over the prior powers. In fact, reading the constitution and taxing cases, it seems pretty on par for me.
The surprise today wasn't that the taxing power was expanded, it was that the CJ called the mandate a tax at all.
But ya, I'm probably a moron. Let's go back to name calling.
Calypso Facto - "Well FDR certainly thought so."
And he and his programs and policies were sooooooooooooo unpopular he was only elected four times.
Duh.
"I find it kind of interesting that Obama was watching Fox News."
Obama is a politician.. he needs those votes.. thats were the votes are.
This is no rocket science.
Love said...
And he and his programs and policies were sooooooooooooo unpopular he was only elected four times.
And as we all know, what is right is popular and what is popular is right.
Duh.
If the networks had first looked to see who wrote the opinion and who concurred with it, they would have realized the left won. Roberts, with concurrence by the lefties should have signaled the outcome. Dissent of the the three conservatives plus Kennedy should have confirmed it.
was to state that many of those could be taxed previously (excise) and that many of those items can't be taxed now
Which of course is completely untrue.
Again, it speaks volumes about your intellect.
Palladian - "I'm mostly amused by some of our run-of-the-mill "liberals", who seem happy with a potentially gigantic and fatal incursion of Federal power into the most intimate spheres of private life, just so long as it pisses off the right-wing 'bitches'."
Yeah, this pretty much the end of the world for American humanity.
A health care policy that will help out millions and millions of Americans who otherwise can't afford or even get insurance coverage.
The horror...
Palladian said...
LOL. Look at all the lately-missing losers who have suddenly appeared since this decision was announced... "Love", "AlphaLiberal", "Dose of Sanity"!
Can't wait to see how many are left when the weekend polls come in on Monday.
In the last 8 hours or so, the Romney campaign has received $1.5 Mil in donations.
How much has Dictator Zero gotten?
If the networks had first looked to see who wrote the opinion and who concurred with it, they would have realized the left won. Roberts, with concurrence by the lefties should have signaled the outcome. Dissent of the the three conservatives plus Kennedy should have confirmed it.
They made the mistake of listening to CJ Roberts who made mention of "this is not within the commerce clause". At the time, the opinion itself was not released and who dissented/concurred was not available. They probably also assumed that was the outcome and let that first tidbit fulfill their expectations.
They all fixed it fast, it happens.
Love said...
Well FDR certainly thought so.
And he and his programs and policies were sooooooooooooo unpopular he was only elected four times.
Duh.
Hmmm, WWII was one of his policies?
Duh.
Soda pop(except for watermelon flavored Arizona Tea)that would be racist (already taxable)
candy (except for skittles)racist again (already taxable)
guns (already taxable)
ammo (already taxable)
free speech(intertwined with the guns and ammo) (not taxable anyway)
contempt of congress charges (not taxable anyway)
tea party protests (not taxable)
town hall meetings (not taxable)
breathing (not taxable)
not buying chevy volts (Most extreme reading, see below)
not belonging to a union (not taxable)
being caucasion (not taxable)
being Christian (not taxable)
being male(white obviously) (not taxable, obviously)
AGW...oops I mean anti-AGW (I'll admit I dont know this acronym :) )
meat (taxable already)
fur (taxable already)
leather (taxable already)
pets(animal slavery) (taxable already)
thinking (not taxable)
private schooling (not sure what this means)
home schooling (see below)
self sufficient homes (assuming this means not buying, see below)
farms (taxable)
Fine, you made me do it.
As for the see belows, you could make an argument as to cleaner cars and homes that the ruling allows this. Remember that credits have been offered for this before (green cars and homes) and taxes have been imposed for older cars which emit too much exhaust.
I'm not sure what you mean by taxing schooling.
So....next Jay? I mean lord, the name calling is your only defense.
edutcher - "Hmmm, WWII was one of his policies?"
What the fuck are you trying to say?
Whether you agree with FDR's policies, the American people elected him four times.
Or do you only agree with the will of the people if it's your candidate that is elected?
Never mind...I already know the answer to that.
Duh.
Love said...
A health care policy that will help out millions and millions of Americans who otherwise can't afford or even get insurance coverage.
Um, the CBO estimates 20 million working people are going to lose their employee sponsored health care plans due to Obamacare.
Idiot.
edutcher, as of an hour ago, donations passed 2 million (according Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul on twitter).
So....next Jay?
Why are you presuming I believe anything you say?
An assertion by you is not fact.
Further, you have proven yourself to be an imbecile multiple times here.
Keep dancing, monkey.
Dose - AGW = anthropenic global warming, or the belief that some portion of global warming is due to human activity.
And, unlike Jay, I'm not looking for a list of things that are taxable/not taxable. I'm looking for an underlying principle that limits the power to tax inactivity (I suppose this would be Jay's "breathing.")
If we still have limited government, how would you square that with today's decision?
Dose of Sanity said...
It's just odd timing coupled with wanting to see what Ann had to say. I've been gone the last few months with graduation, admission to the bar, work, etc. Cooled off a bit now, so I wandered back.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
We believe you!
Really, we do!
This is why I am living without television. Why bother to pay for that crap?
Jay - You're such a dick.
I'm looking for an underlying principle that limits the power to tax inactivity
I just watched a Georgetown Law Professor say on live TV he couldn't find one under what Justice Roberts said today.
Patrick - "If we still have limited government, how would you square that with today's decision?"
Where were YOU during the eight years of G.W. and Company? Head up your ass? Spending time with your buddy, Jay the dick?
From the Wall Street Journal:
If increases in government spending matter, then Mr. Bush is worse than any president in recent history.
During his first four years in office -- a period during which his party controlled Congress -- he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget.
The only other presidential term that comes close? Mr. Bush's second term.
As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term.
If spending under Mr. Bush was a disaster, regulation was even worse.
The number of pages in the Federal Registry is a rough proxy for the swollen expanse of the regulatory state.
In 2001, some 64,438 pages of regulations were added to it.
In 2007, more than 78,000 new pages were added.
Worse still, argues the Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, Mr. Bush is the unparalleled master of "economically significant regulations" that cost the economy more than $100 million a year.
Since 2001, he jacked that number by more than 70%.
Since June 2008 alone, he introduced more than 100 economically significant regulations.
Dose of Sanity said...
Who I sleep with is none of their business
what I drive ...
what I read...
what I say...
where I travel...
who I associate with...
What you read, what you say, who you associate with...I believe those are pretty clearly noted in the bill of rights.
Weren't you one of the nutjobs who, a few months ago, insisted this was not a tax? I seem to recall you were involved.
Love,
Did you know me during the GWB administration? Because I don't remember you. I therefore find it odd that you would presume to know what I think about his presidency.
As you may recall, GWB was very unpopular by the time his presidency was over. He was always unpopular with the left - he never had them, and once he was elected, he was never going to get them.
Thin is, Love, he was also unpopular with the right and libertarians for his expansion of government. I disliked this his expansionist policies tremendously, as did many on the right and libertarians. That is why he was so unpopular. He didn't lose the left- he never had it. He lost the right, and his approval ratings show it.
I'd like to presume that next time you comment, you'd have some idea what you're talking about, but past history seems to make that an awfully bad bet.
Revenant - "I find it kind of interesting that Obama was watching Fox News."
It said it was a split screen wita number of networks visible.
Sure, but that doesn't make it any less interesting.
you clearly don't know what an excise tax is.
From the IRS (our new enforcer)Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. Excise Tax has several general excise tax programs. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel.
It seems that in the above definition, you have to do something, use or buy something to be subjected to an excise tax.
If I don't buy gasoline because don't drive or walk everywhere, I am not going to be paying an excise tax whether it is included in the price of fuel or not. Yeah yeah yeah. I know if I take the bus the excise taxes are built into the price of the fare. But I have the choice to take the bus or NOT.
BUT This tax is a tax for doing nothing. It is a tax for just existing. What other things that we DON'T do can they tax us on?
Patrick - "If we still have limited government, how would you square that with today's decision?"
Where were YOU during the eight years of G.W. and Company? Head up your ass?
It's odd that we're talking about Constitutional limits on federal power and you're talking about spending. Not exactly germaine.
Jay:
Um, the CBO estimates 20 million working people are going to lose their employee sponsored health care plans due to Obamacare.
That's okay. The Democrats don't care because those are just people working for the evil private sector.
I've been in court all afternoon so been out of touch. Can't stop and read all the comments. But
If I was Mitt Romney I would take a copy of the ACA every where I spoke; all 2700 pages. I would hold it up and tell people that "not one Congressman or Senator who voted for this knows what is in it even now. Their leader said 'We have to pass it to know what's in it.' That's how stupid they think you are and how little they care about their obligation to represent you."
Call it "Wave the Bloody Shirt", if you will.
Satire and Irony, to the right a useful tool to whip a politician or debating opponent, for the left, an undiscovered country in the English, hell, any language.
I should know better than arguing with idiots, they beat you with their experience.
As for school...no, only the real world, so I can't quote geniuses like Krugman, or even Barry Zero. What I do know is that the more money you take out of peoples pockets, the less they have to spend. The less they have to spend the slower the economy goes. The slower the economy goes the less money people make. The less money people make the less taxes the government brings in. The less government brings in the more they tax...yadda yadda yadda.
If only someone could come up with a way to keep the economy growing.
Hows that stack up to a degree from the University of Moscow?
Let me know when you want to find out where babies come from.
Democrats: You deserve all a doctors learning and training. He's a bitch for wanting payment for it.
Love said...
Hmmm, WWII was one of his policies?
What the fuck are you trying to say?
Whether you agree with FDR's policies, the American people elected him four times.
Or do you only agree with the will of the people if it's your candidate that is elected?
No, but many Americans (and his margin of victory got smaller with each election) followed him for the same reason many Germans followed Adolf to Stalingrad and Auschwitz.
yashu said...
edutcher, as of an hour ago, donations passed 2 million (according Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul on twitter).
As I say, how much has Zero raised today.
So, the real crux of the issue many of you seem to have is with "if this a tax, what is the tax imposed on? I feel like I'm being taxed for NOT doing something".
Personally, I'm inclined to agree that is not a tax. If it was a tax, I'd look to the Butler cases. However, Roberts disagrees and says this type of authority does not compel someone do something that would clearly be outside of the federal authority. Basically, that the level of the tax is not great that it "forces" you to buy the product. You can simply choose to pay the tax instead. If for example the tax was $10000 or more, that might be the limit.
It's not very clear and I'm not sure I'd agree, but I can certainly recognize the argument there.
Like I said - read the opinion. It's long, but it's not bad at all.
(And yes, Jay, I really am a lawyer and I really am admitted to the State Bar here in Wisconsin. Speaking of which, my dues are due soon!)
Jay: The law was upheld on a basis — the taxing power — that the Administration didn’t advance.
Are you stupid? Obama's lawyers argued alternative grounds for upholding the law, one of which was Congress's tax power. So, yes, they did advance that argument. But that fact won't stop you from making the same erroneous statements in thread after thread while calling people names, will it?
I'm not sure how you keep making that mistake when Justice Roberts says in the opinion itself that they must now turn to the government's second argument, asking the Court to read the mandate as imposing a tax. Maybe you should stop trolling and go read the opinion.
And the challengers to the law conceded to the Court that if Congress called it a tax it would be constitutional. Justice Roberts exercised judicial restraint in upholding it. As he quotes Justice Holmes: “[T]he rule is
settled that as between two possible interpretations of a
statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and
by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which
will save the Act.”
The Solicitor General's oral arguments were being mocked on this blog ("Ha ha -- he can't decide if it's a tax or a penalty! Scalia yelled at him!") but that's how he got Roberts to compromise with the liberal justices.
And, no, it's not a massive victory for the far left, of which I'm not a part. Not everything the far left would want to do in the future will be supported under the tax powers, and the things that would be will still open those politicians up to attack for wanting to raise taxes.
It's a victory for political moderates in America, and it's a victory for those in need of better health care.
Good luck with Romney this fall when the Obama campaign can just run this 2007 clip of him calling an individual mandate the "ultimate conservatism".
LoafingOaf said...
It's a victory for political moderates in America, and it's a victory for those in need of better health care.
Sure. Oaf and Zero are moderates.
Like Rafsanjani and Khameni.
and when the rationing begins and the Death Panels start telling "those in need of better health care" they can't get this procedure or that medicine that used to be readily available, they'll all yell, "Nike".
Good luck with Romney this fall when the Obama campaign can just run this 2007 clip of him calling an individual mandate the "ultimate conservatism".
Good luck with Zero this Fall when the Romster starts the ads showing Zero telling Steffi, "It's not a tax", and promising he won't raise taxes on anybody making less than $250,000.
LoafingOaf said...
Jay: The law was upheld on a basis — the taxing power — that the Administration didn’t advance.
Are you stupid?
I'll answer that: Yes, Jay is stupid. And he's also a dick.
Palladian: I heard you went a bit broke under the Bush economy, so for your sake I'm glad you've got Obamacare.
Haven't seen Palin's response to the events as she's not very high profile anymore (we kicked her ass). Whatever she's tweeting to her twits I'm sure it's nutty but I have no reason to care anymore (thank the Lord).
Patrick - If I remember correctly, you are the one who said this: "If we still have limited government, how would you square that with today's decision?"
And I would consider that to be your take on the current administration's support of someting that will help millions of people...as being some kind of massive expansion of government.
Well, I posted what Bush did...and please, don't tell me you didn't vote for him...twice...because we both know you did.
Calling out the Obama administration for an expansion of government, after what your guy did...is hypocritical bullshit.
LoafingOaf said...
Are you stupid? Obama's lawyers argued alternative grounds for upholding the law, one of which was Congress's tax power.
Actually, you're an idiot.
Thanks for participating.
Love said...
And I would consider that to be your take on the current administration's support of someting that will help millions of people
Dumbass:
There is no evidence, anywhere at all, this will help millions of people.
But of course you must lie endlessly to justify your silly political beliefs.
There isn't really all that much reason to get upset about this.
As others have noted, the mandate itself can be removed without risking a filibuster. The remainder of the law can simply go unenforced by a Republican President, much as immigration law goes unenforced by Obama.
Not desirable from a Constitutional perspective, of course, but so little is. :)
Love,
I certainly did vote for Bush, twice. Considering that he was running against Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom would've expanded the government's power more and spent far more, I consider it to be my best option at the time.
Are you seriously calling me a "hypocrite" for saying that I don't like expansionist government? I didn't like it when Bush did it, I don't like it when Pres. Obama does it. Hell, I think it is self evident that it was a poor idea when LBJ and FDR did it. That's not hypocrisy.
I find your faith that the ACA will "help millions of people" naive. The only thing it will do is help the President and his devotees feel good about themselves for spending other people's money.
Yes, FDR was popular. My parents loved him, but he used every trick in the book to enhance his popularity. He was elected four times but he was also the reason for the amendment being passed that outlawed that, and limited presidents to two terms. He is also the reason for the Hatch Act which forbids federal officials from conducting political activities on the job, and coercing political contributions from subordinates. His labor policies led directly to the Taft-Hartly Act, which limited some of the abuses unions had been getting away with.
That is just perfect. The POTUS gets his information from the TV. More proof of his idiocy.
Please, it's perfectly obivious what happened, and not really all that bad looking for CNN.
The taxing power argument was always a joke---only the most partisan traitors ever bought it. It was practically laughed out of court. So CNN naturally flipped only to the sections dealing with the Commerce Power, which were the crux of the case and last vestiges of our constitution.
Finding there that Roberts didn't think think the Commerce Power could do what Obama said it could do, CNN ran with it.
CNN didn't read the taxing power first because, like everyone with a brain and eyes to see, it was a loser.
Roberts, of course, is such a loser, traitor, and liar that he used it.
It's not so much egg on CNN's face as on Roberts: he used an argument that had no validity, so people assumed he, being presented as a rational, good man, would find it invalid. That's what a rational, good man would have done.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा