Good discussion going on here

[Smitty]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/06/kicking-out-paulites.html

No registration needed to add a comment.

[Peace&Freedom]

I concur. The best comment was one about the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, and how parts of Roberts' ruling make the matter salvageable for those of us who want to challenge the law, as individuals or states. That's probably why in joining the liberals, Roberts chose to write the decision---to give the right tools to fight the law, even as he was giving it bogus constitutional blessing:

"I've changed my mind about the Roberts decision, and now regard it as a clever move. I'm curious what you think about this:

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases."

[Smitty]

That's the mother of all rationalizations.

[SewrRatt]

That's the mother of all rationalizations.

Yeah, no kidding. If he was really that against it, he could've broken the tie and STRUCK THE ENTIRE DAMN THING DOWN.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Haha whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Peace&Freedom]

It's a rationalization, but gives us something to work with. Who knows what they bribed or blackmailed Roberts with, to get him to flip the very week the decision was to be given. The decision was originally scheduled for Monday or Tuesday, which is why the media was expecting it early in the week. The delay was probably in order to negotiate the cave by Roberts.

[Danke]

As I said all along, it will be found Constitutional, as it is a tax.

[TheTexan]

It's a rationalization, but gives us something to work with. Who knows what they bribed or blackmailed Roberts with, to get him to flip the very week the decision was to be given. The decision was originally scheduled for Monday or Tuesday, which is why the media was expecting it early in the week. The delay was probably in order to negotiate the cave by Roberts.

More than likely he flipped of his own free will. He may have been persuaded, but I sincerely doubt he was threatened.

Conservatives == Democrats == Socialists == Conservatives == Democrats == Socialists == Republicans == Democrats

[Weston White]

As I said all along, it will be found Constitutional, as it is a tax.

Yea, but it’s not. It was crafted as a penalty for refusing to participate in mandated commerce (regardless if state intercourse was to be involved or not).

There is not such thing as a class of tax that may be imposed for not doing or for refusing to something, by that very definition it is a fine and not a tax. Moreover, the aspect of constitutional apportionment does not seem to have been addressed (as neither were other several constitutional stipulations that relate to the Court's findings), as a tax to be assessed directly on every living person (save for those exempted).

It would appear that Roberts, CJ does not appear to comprehend the subject of taxation very well.

[Weston White]

Who knows what they bribed or blackmailed Roberts with, to get him to flip the very week the decision was to be given.

Well if there is any truth to that notion, I have two words and five syllables: Nancy Pelosi.

[CaptUSA]

Judge Roberts wanted to remain conservative by keeping away from judicial activism and allowing the law to stand because it is what the elected representatives created.

But in doing so, he had to do the exact opposite. By, in effect, rewriting the law to call the penalty a tax, he engaged in one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism ever demonstrated.

I understand the ruling and it may pay off in the long run if America can get it's legislators under control, but to say he did this to avoid judicial activism stretches all credibility.

[Danke]

Yea, but it’s not. It was crafted as a penalty for refusing to participate in mandated commerce (regardless if state intercourse was to be involved or not).

There is not such thing as a class of tax that may be imposed for not doing or for refusing to something, by that very definition it is a fine and not a tax. Moreover, the aspect of constitutional apportionment does not seem to have been addressed (as neither were other several constitutional stipulations that relate to the Court's findings), as a tax to be assessed directly on every living person (save for those exempted).

It would appear that Roberts, CJ does not appear to comprehend the subject of taxation very well.

If you are not involved in a privileged activity, you are not taxed or "penalized." It remains a type of tax.

"It does not apply to individuals who do not
pay federal income taxes because their household income
is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue
Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the pay-
ment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as
taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing
status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to
pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by
the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess
and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.”