Obama Care, How Will Be Judged On Thursday?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"Amy Howe: On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions."

We're through the looking-glass here, people...

Not really. Roberts says Congress cant saddle the States with unfunded mandates. It seems to me this part of it is a backdoor route to terminating all unfunded mandates Congress sends to the States.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

That's interesting. There might be some sense in that.

 

[Wok]

One thing is for sure, the battle lines at least clearly drawn in the elections.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

First he said it was, then he said it wasn't. Republicans have also argued both sides though.

How are you doing today by the way, Vette? Ready to eat a mountain of crow? How many times in your post history did you call Obamacare unconstitutional? Literally hundreds I imagine. You must feel terrible.

By the way, stfu and go buy insurance. Because your very own party's Chief Justice says that it's okay for Obama to make you do it. How's that feel?

Not so quick. Obama aint got the tax lockedup as of now. He may never get a tax bill thru Congress.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wrong Element]

Ordinarily I'd think it's a big deal that the dissenters don't believe the commerce clause is applicable here, except that they can and will change their minds when it comes to laws they do like--the way Scalia once believed that someone growing medical marijuana for their personal use was engaged in "interstate commerce."

 

[Byron In Exile]

So you only agree with SCOTUS when they agree with you
That flaming liberal Roberts!

No, I only agree with the Supreme Court when they make sense.

If you knew anything about history you'd know that they sometimes don't.

Also: 1) who the fuck are you? and 2) shut up.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

Yeah, it's not like the law can be, you know, repealed by Congress or anything, the same way it was passed by Congress.

Look up "despotism" and get back to me.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Obama said it wasn't a tax.

He'll backpedal that one by the end of the day tomorrow.

 

[Adre]

Mittens ought to be thrilled. Romneycare would have been Constitutional!

 

[Wok]

Mittens ought to be thrilled. Romneycare would have been Constitutional!

Er, his was on a state level.

 

[TexasWife25]

Mittens ought to be thrilled. Romneycare would have been Constitutional!

No matter what the court had ruled, Romney is the clear cut winner.

 

[Byron In Exile]

From the SCOTUS Blog:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

That is as close to sense as we're likely to get from this court, I suppose.

One can avoid the tax penalty for not having health insurance by not having any income.

Win-win.

 

[Adre]

Er, his was on a state level.

I said "would" implying...oh, never mind.

 

[Byron In Exile]

No matter what the court had ruled, Romney is the clear cut winner.

No doubt.

The American people have just about had it with Obama.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

"Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate."

And what... go to jail?

When has a citizen "simply" refused to pay income tax and not landed in prison?

Meanwhile, back in another version of fact being stranger than fiction, some kindly old lady who returned over $400,000.00 is still awaiting her $754.00 tax return.

http://news.yahoo.com/waitress-gets...XNyoA;_ylc=X3IDMgRjc3JjcHZpZANwMEkzbzBvRzd2N0

 

[Byron In Exile]

"Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power."

 

[busybody..]

Mittens ought to be thrilled. Romneycare would have been Constitutional!

Tee, sadly true, Hee

 

[busybody..]

"Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate."

ANYONE HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THIS?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

From the SCOTUS Blog:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

After the initial shock it now seems to me that what Roberts did is really OK cuz what it does is forces Congress to impose a tax but the tax cant be a penalty, and it cant be driven by the commerce clause. How likely is a tax coming outta the GOP House?