SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[WilliamCody]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:47 PM, Joe Miner said:

"So even though Congress wrote a law that doesn't say anything that would make it constitutional, we can see what they meant and we've fixed it up for them."

 

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

[LeviF]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:48 PM, Joe Miner said:

"So even though Congress wrote a law that doesn't say anything that would make it constitutional, we can see what they meant and we've fixed it up for them."

That's what I'm getting so far. There is precedent for this...but Roberts has been known to ignore precedent in the past.

[IDBillzFan]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:46 PM, Juror#8 said:

Nope. It's a great day for those who want to see something ultimately happen with respect to healthcare reform.

That would be true if ACA actually reformed health care. All it does is raise everyone's taxes. Of course, that's also a great day for liberals, so let's not split hairs.

[LeviF]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:49 PM, WilliamCody said:

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

I'll be interested to see if Roberts not only looked at "function," but also at Congressional "intent."

 

Oh wait, he can't. Because we "have to pass it to see what's in it."

[birdog1960]

wow!...roberts does have a conscience after all. i really felt it might go down...this is a pleasant surprise.

[WilliamCody]

Roberts: Our Decision Isn’t About Whether Obamacare Is Sound Policy

 

ACA Decision not about judging policy

[Joe Miner]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:52 PM, WilliamCody said:

Roberts: Our Decision Isn’t About Whether Obamacare Is Sound Policy

 

ACA Decision not about judging policy

 

It's about whether we can change what's written just enough to make it pass a Constitutional check.

[WilliamCody]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:50 PM, LeviF91 said:

I'll be interested to see if Roberts not only looked at "function," but also at Congressional "intent."

 

Oh wait, he can't. Because we "have to pass it to see what's in it."

 

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.

 

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:55 PM, Joe Miner said:

It's about whether we can change what's written just enough to make it pass a Constitutional check.

 

Is this spoken from Roberts' or Congress' perspective?

[erynthered]

 

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax

Sep 20, 2009 9:00am

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

 

 

I guess it is obama. This will go down as one of the biggest tax increases in american history.

 

[Joe Miner]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:56 PM, WilliamCody said:

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?

 

Robert's.

 

Congress has no idea what the Constitution is, or how it's incorporated into their job.

[WilliamCody]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:59 PM, Joe Miner said:

Robert's.

 

Congress has no idea what the Constitution is, or how it's incorporated into their job.

 

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

[Dante]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:51 PM, birdog1960 said:

wow!...roberts does have a conscience after all. i really felt it might go down...this is a pleasant surprise.

And a inferior brain to go with it.

[Joe Miner]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:00 PM, WilliamCody said:

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

 

I don't know what Robert's wants.

 

But I do know that ACA didn't actually say what the justices massaged it into saying.

 

This isn't a newspaper where Congress are the writers and the Court is the editor. You shouldn't just get to slap **** down, and wait for someone to fix your mistakes later.

[WilliamCody]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:01 PM, Dante said:

And a inferior brain to go with it.

 

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

[IDBillzFan]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:55 PM, Joe Miner said:

It's about whether we can change what's written just enough to make it pass a Constitutional check.

Or not. I believe if the mandate is now a tax, it becomes a different beast altogether.

[WilliamCody]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:02 PM, Joe Miner said:

I don't know what Robert's wants.

 

But I do know that ACA didn't actually say what the justices massaged it into saying.

 

This isn't a newspaper where Congress are the writers and the Court is the editor. You shouldn't just get to slap **** down, and wait for someone to fix your mistakes later.

 

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.

[Joe Miner]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:03 PM, LABillzFan said:

Or not. I believe if the mandate is now a tax, it becomes a different beast altogether.

 

 

We'll see.

 

But have you ever seen the gov't do anything good when they discover a new way to tax people?

[LeviF]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:56 PM, WilliamCody said:

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.

Right, I was just throwing in a little Pelosi humor that we can appreciate.

 

Roberts takes judicial restraint seriously, everyone knows that. The rest of them use it when it is convenient. Now that I'm reading his opinion, I can see where he's coming from. Is it the decision I would have made? Probably not, but I can't be sure. To be sure, the dissenting opinions are very strong as well. But it's up to the Chief Justice to establish what the judicial attitudes on the Court will be. He decided that restraint is more important than ideology. I can appreciate that.

 

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:02 PM, Joe Miner said:

But I do know that ACA didn't actually say what the justices massaged it into saying.

It was an argument that the attorneys made. Roberts didn't pull this out of his ass.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

but i thought the new tax penalty cannot be enforced? no?

[WilliamCody]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:09 PM, MARCELL DAREUS POWER said:

but i thought the new tax penalty cannot be enforced? no?

 

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.