WilliamCody

This may indeed be the end result, but not, IMO, from some design of the Court or Roberts.

I think this is a debate over semantics. The penalty was a tax. So it ultimately comes down to whether you interpret the tax or the penalty portions of the provision to be the real mover behind the law. Roberts seems to think that if a "penalty" is a tax and nothing else, then it is a tax. He's looking at the constitutional functionality of the law as written, not on the efficacy or form of the policy itself. EDIT: and because the "penalty" is tagged to your income tax return, it can be seen as part of the tax code.

I'd like to hear someone in the know address this. I assume that (1) part of the law has provisions for enforcement or (2) it will be enforced through the IRS like every other tax. But I'm not sure.

The point I've been trying to make is that Robert wasn't looking at the wording or the read world policy effects, but of his and the Court's constitutional power to adjudicate the IM. And since Congress pinned this "mandate" to a tax - well within it's powers - he deemed it a functional and Constitutional power for Congress. You can tell by reading his opinion he did not want to have to make this decision, but his strict constructionism forced him to.

Right. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the greatest Constitutional lawyers of the last two decades is an idiot.

So you think that Roberts actually wanted this thing to pass and tailored his decision to suit?

It's plain that Roberts was taking a conservative view of the Court's ability to adjudicate on matters of taxation. See above link in my last post for a excerpt from his opinion where he directly addresses this. Is this spoken from Roberts' or Congress' perspective?

Roberts: Our Decision Isn’t About Whether Obamacare Is Sound Policy ACA Decision not about judging policy

It's more like "We can see through the political rhetoric and see how this thing actually functions"

Corporate business. Small business can't simply up and move states.

How so? And even if they could, the insurance companies and health care industry have been preparing for a year and a half for the law as its written. Any changes now would simply delay implementation. Unless, of course, this is the goal, it would be wise to let the industries deal with the reform in a way that best suits them.

Link to full decision: ACA 5-4

It's going to fall on the insurance and health care industry to make it work. Congress can really do nothing but pass a few small measures way to late. Luckily most companies were preparing for the law to be upheld so this is not going to be a shock. We are going to have to see about this one. Supposedly, this is the most complex part of the decision and know on has really waded through it completely yet. It is unclear whether the narrow ruling applies only to Medicaid or to the entire ACA Interestingly, all four dissenters say the entire ACA should be invalid. Looks like this one is entirely on Roberts.

Explain why it is such a sad day.

It's a simple justification, really. The only penalty for the individual mandate is a tax. You can't be punished otherwise. So Congress' power is in levying taxes. Within this conception, the law is constitutional.

SCOTUSblog ‏@SCOTUSblog Expansion of Medicaid is constitutional (key), but States can't be stripped of funds for not complying with expansion provisions.

All of ACA upheld except that fed government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read. Roberts was the swing - voted with the libs. Kennedy with cons.

QFT!!!!!!!!

We need a CB to be sure, but I think a solid OLB is a bigger need at the moment - and then you caould make the argument that WR is just as big a need as CB.

By "the media" are you referring to the major network news outlets?

from the Huffington article: This reveals, to me, that there is little centralized command in the administration. Either that, or it was a PR move and the admin had no intention of ever stopping the exemptions. from Politico: My guess is that it would be time consuming and expensive to reply to the many FOIA requests that would come from this move. Its up to the public to debate whether the information gained from such requests would be worth such an expenditure. We'll have to decide in this case what is more important, getting the "real story" behind Freddy and Fanny, or spending more money on these inquiries. I always tend to fall on the side of more information.

Not faulting you at all, I realize that's likely what happened. And my second post was simply asking for other instances of the non-transparency of the administration so we could have a larger conversation that wasn't based on anecdotal examples. I am not refuting anything. I totally agree that this administration backed out of a promise to become more transparent. But I don't have any examples at hand to actually point to an instance where they could have been transparent and chose not to be. That's all I want, an actual example that we can discuss. Since you are the OP and trying to make this point, I think it is on you to find another concrete example to make your point since your original example did not work. Otherwise, the conversation will devolve into personal attacks like it is dangerous close to now. And I suppose I am "not very credible" because I ask that we center our discussion around actual examples rather than bashing things willy-nilly?

Also, play action to your tight end up the middle. If they focus on Nelson like they did last game, Chandler's got to step up and beat the Jet's safeties up the middle. Once we get this working a bit, then just keep pounding them in the middle.

Jets fans have been saying this for a while. He's good on the slat route with no pressure, but that's about it.