November 15, 2013

Has Obama Invited the Supreme Court to Revisit His Obamacare Tax?
— Ace

Interesting post from Megan McArdle.

Early in the post, she discusses Obama's metric for counting "enrollees."

. There has been a sort of Talmudic debate over the meaning of the word “enroll” -- should we count folks who had chosen a plan and asked to be invoiced, or should we count only those who paid? Some of the people who enroll will not actually end up paying their premium. However, because premiums for January plans aren’t due until December, counting only those who have already mailed in their check or money order will substantially undercount those who will end up enrolling. Myself, I leaned toward counting those who have enrolled in a plan and requested an invoice for payment. But there were decent arguments on both sides.

The Barack Obama administration resolved this debate by choosing a third metric: They counted everyone who had put a policy in their online shopping cart, even if they hadnÂ’t actually gone ahead and signed up. By this logic, I am the proud owner of 28 items in my Amazon.com cart, including a hot pink laptop case and a fridge mount for an iPad model I donÂ’t even own.

But the most important part is this:

The administration is not changing the rules, just declining to enforce them against the insurers. This is becoming a pattern: ObamaÂ’s position on the law seems to be that itÂ’s his law, and therefore the law is whatever he and his appointees say it is. ThatÂ’s dangerous for all sorts of reasons, not least because it makes them vulnerable to court action.

Presumably they will also not enforce the mandate against people who have grandfathered plans. But that raises an interesting legal issue. Remember that in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was a tax. And as a lawyer of my acquaintance points out, taxes have to be enforced uniformly; the Internal Revenue Service can pick and choose who it audits, but it cannot pick and choose who has to obey the law. If it declines to enforce the mandate against grandfathered consumers, it's conceivably opening itself up to a bunch of legal challenges.

There is an old saying that Supreme Court justices are not in fact apolitical actors at all, but are, of course, intensely political people sensitive to the same sorts of things as any other politician, such as politicians: "The Supreme Court reads the election returns too."

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare, that it was unconstitutional, to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship.

Now, he did so even when Obamacare was already unpopular. But Historic President and all that.

But note, now, how much the political situation has changed. And consider how much he might like to have a second shot at this opinion.

And Obama has given him a pretext to write a new opinion. The Court would never simply reverse itself in a year.

But if the facts have sufficiently changed, and if Obama is interpreting his "tax" in a lawless way, claiming it only applies to groups which aren't becoming a political headache.... That gives Roberts the cover to say not "I was wrong" (which he won't say) but "I was right, and as I said previously this is a tax, and taxes must be levied even-handedly, and therefore this law must be struck for failure of the executive to apply it equally to all citizens."

It's no slam-dunk, I know. And the usual judicial response to a failure to enforce a law even-handedly is to demand the executive enforce it even-handedly, not to strike down the law altogether.

But might as well take the shot and see what happens.

Posted by: Ace at 07:03 AM | Comments (249)
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

1 First!

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:05 AM (HubSo)

2

It's no slam-dunk, I know. And the usual judicial response to a failure to enforce a law even-handedly is to demand the executive enforce it even-handedly, not to strike down the law altogether.

But might as well take the shot and see what happens.




i would take it.

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:06 AM (nqBYe)

3 Bonus!

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 15, 2013 07:06 AM (IXrOn)

4 This will never happen, because Roberts was blackmailed, not making PC rulings.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:06 AM (Y92Nd)

5 I like the argument that, as a tax, ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate, not the House. 

Of course, the Origination Clause may have "evolved" since the last time I read it.  Or it may have emanations and penumbras that we mere mortals cannot see. 

Posted by: Phinn at November 15, 2013 07:07 AM (KOGmz)

6 because, There would be shrieking from everyone that is currently on the I do not have to comply list, and They seemingly have more Power /money/persuasion then us peons.

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:07 AM (nqBYe)

7 > This will never happen, because Roberts was blackmailed, not making PC rulings

The NSA apparatus sure isn't for catching radical Islamists.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at November 15, 2013 07:08 AM (ZWvOb)

8 Never.

Posted by: NCKate at November 15, 2013 07:08 AM (w7CQT)

9 It's no slam-dunk, I know. And the usual judicial response to a failure to enforce a law even-handedly is to demand the executive enforce it even-handedly, not to strike down the law altogether. But might as well take the shot and see what happens. --- Yes, we can take the shot. It still depends on SCOTUS deciding the issue is sufficiently ripe and that the person bringing it "has standing", though. I think the better play is to ramp up pressure on the Dems to repeal this shit sandwich, as they're going to start panicing more and more as we get closer to the election and they've got this millstone tied to their necks.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 15, 2013 07:09 AM (/Crba)

10 The USSC is a body that issues opinions, and as such is change to the vagaries of opinion. I'd bet the farm that whatever happens that fedco has already flushed a trillion dollars down the crapper that ain't coming back. Payoff's to all his cronies.

Posted by: Gmac - pondering the coming implosion, hoping its the goverment at November 15, 2013 07:09 AM (IanLz)

11 If it declines to enforce the mandate against grandfathered consumers, it's conceivably opening itself up to a bunch of legal challenges.


Fuck yeah.

Posted by: EC at November 15, 2013 07:09 AM (GQ8sn)

12 one other thing since it is a tax, are people being discriminated against  if they are already Ill or ? by higher taxes ?

(I don't know if this thought would actually have any standing )
but i threw it out  there anyway.

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:09 AM (nqBYe)

13 With respect to AllenG
Barack Obama is a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Malignant Traitor.

Posted by: chiefjaybob at November 15, 2013 07:11 AM (RtBoA)

14 IT'S A TAX and a NUTTY topping for toast!

//Judas Iscariot Roberts

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:11 AM (9jfyN)

15 or. is the redistribute  by income what works to not point out discrimination against those with issues?

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:11 AM (nqBYe)

16 Let it burn.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: chiefjaybob at November 15, 2013 07:11 AM (RtBoA)

17 But note, now, how much the political situation has changed. And consider how much he might like to have a second shot at this opinion.


That ship has sailed.  No "do-over" by John Taney Roberts will ever repair his odious reputation.  That decision was his permanent legacy.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 15, 2013 07:12 AM (8ZskC)

18 I say just throw everything at this piece of shit "law"    until   something sticks.   Legislative, judicial,    religious,    municipal,   parochial,  everything.   It's unconstitutional and immoral in so many ways,  not to mention economically unworkable, that it WILL destroy itself.  We just have to help it along.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:12 AM (4df7R)

19

I'm no legal expert by I can't see how anybody has standing.

 

"Its not fair they treated some other guy differently" never works out as an argument. If it did, I should sue for the thousands I spent on my wife's green card.

Posted by: burmatar at November 15, 2013 07:13 AM (khpOW)

20 >>And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship.

What?  Maintain its image of nonpartisanship?  I think it was just the opposite.  It looked, and looks, highly partisan.  In fact, it is easily shown as partisan because if his decision were based in truth, the political winds would have no bearing.

Posted by: dogfish at November 15, 2013 07:13 AM (nsOJa)

21 19 burmatar at November 15, 2013 11:13 AM (khpOW)

Uh awesome let's throw out affirmative action then...oops

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:13 AM (9jfyN)

22 As a practical matter, it's hard to see who the parties would be. If I owe a tax, do I have standing to sue the IRS because it is not collecting the tax from my neighbor? Probably not. I'm not harmed in any way by the IRS's refusal to collect the tax, except in the generalized sense that every taxpayer is. The Supreme Court ruled in Flast v. Cohen that there's no such thing as generalized taxpayer standing to sue the government, so unless I can show an actual injury, I probably don't get a day in court.



But the Oklahoma lawsuit might have legs. That is an issue of statutory interpretation, where the ACA clearly says that people who live in states that organize their own Obamacare exchanges can have subsidies, but is silent about the states that do not have their own exchanges. HHS has taken the position that states that are relying on the federal exchanges are "partnering" with the federal government and so their citizens are eligible for subsidies, which flies in the face of the plain text. An argument could be made that Congress intended to withhold those benefits as a stick to force states to set up exchanges. The case is now pending, and while the trial judge refused to issue an injunction against payment of the subsidies, he also did not dismiss the case. This one could conceivably make it to the Supremes, but likely not until 2015.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:14 AM (HubSo)

23 Any reason used to ditch this disastrous thing is a good reason.

Posted by: joncelli at November 15, 2013 07:14 AM (RD7QR)

24 Nice try wingnuts. It's just a glitch plus the whole thing was originally a conservative idea plus it's the insurance companies that are doing stuff for business reasons plus medicare part d started exactly like this plus republicans have been trying to sabotage it for four years plus it's settled law.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at November 15, 2013 07:14 AM (+lsX1)

25 Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 15, 2013 11:09 AM (/Crba) He gets it. Full repeal. Period.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:15 AM (Y92Nd)

26 I think the better play is to ramp up pressure on the Dems to repeal this shit sandwich, as they're going to start panicing more and more as we get closer to the election and they've got this millstone tied to their necks. Repeal or drown? Repeal or drown? Gimme a minute. I'm thinking.....

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 07:15 AM (p9JxP)

27 Dream on..  We had one chance and Roberts blew it.

We know Obama would stop at nothing to win - look what he did to Jack Ryan here in Illinois just to get his Senate seat.

Whatever he had on Roberts must have been pretty good.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 15, 2013 07:15 AM (f9c2L)

28 It's not a tax. It's a tax.

Posted by: King Roberts at November 15, 2013 07:15 AM (4/o9U)

29 Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 11:09 AM (nqBYe) Hmmmm.... if the penalty IS a Tax.... it opens up the door to a number of interesting attacks. 1. The Cost of Insurance can now be tied to lifestyle choices, such as weight, or smoking, and IMO soon Alcohol use.... thus Lifestyle makes getting the Tax more likely. 2. Some Religions are exempt from the Tax all together. 3. The latest Union buyoff, where they do not have to pay one of the O'care fees, but others to... 4. The Prezzy and the Big Companies not having the mandate... the ONLY way Taxes can change is through a Bill, which MUSt start in the House of Reps. So, 'IF' this is a Tax... then it has huge problems under the idea that Taxes must be uniform.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 07:16 AM (lZBBB)

30 27 Chi-Town Jerry at November 15, 2013 11:15 AM (f9c2L)

Chicago is a shining example and gift bearer to America...thanks again Illinois.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:16 AM (9jfyN)

31 I'd gladly take the Supreme Court striking it down, but the partisan in me sees how that gives the Democrats an easy out. I'd rather it fail so hard that Democrats in Congress have to vote to repeal it before Obama is out of office. I want them to be humiliated, and for this monstrosity, born of their hubris, to devastate their party and end the idea of socialized medicine in America for a generation.

Posted by: speak softly and carry a red stick at November 15, 2013 07:16 AM (vQTNc)

32 >>>This will never happen, because Roberts was blackmailed, not making PC rulings i sure wish I could say "That's crazy, don't be such a conspiracy theorist" But I can't. It's very possible.

Posted by: ace at November 15, 2013 07:16 AM (/FnUH)

33 Chi-Town if Roberts had ANY real honor for a Man in His position . He should have left the bench.

for the good of the country.

But He rather keep his position?

anyway this thing and Petraus have really taken hits on what i used to believe were honorable positions  with honorable men.

(yeah i was a LIV for a loooong time)

still growing .

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:18 AM (nqBYe)

34 It would open up a can of worms for the surpreme court to rule on how the president does his job. It is the job of the two people's houses to do that. In other good news, everytime a democrate crys an angel gets its wings.

Posted by: Bob from table9 at November 15, 2013 07:18 AM (jsa6I)

35

But if the facts have sufficiently changed, and if Obama is interpreting his "tax" in a lawless way, claiming it only applies to groups which aren't becoming a political headache.... That gives Roberts the cover to say not "I was wrong" (which he won't say) but "I was right, and as I said previously this is a tax, and taxes must be levied even-handedly, and therefore this law must be struck for failure of the executive to apply it equally to all citizens."

 

 

Wouldn't that rather mean that the executive would be ordered to actually enforce the law as written without all of the waivers and delays?  That would, I think, be the last thing the Democrats want for the call for a repeal would be even louder then than it is now.

 

 

Some bells peal; these ones are tolling for ObamaScare and Obama's Legacy.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Reprehension, Condemnation, and More at the Outrage Outlet! at November 15, 2013 07:18 AM (hLRSq)

36 I'm no legal expert by I can't see how anybody has standing.

"Its not fair they treated some other guy differently" never works out as an argument. If it did, I should sue for the thousands I spent on my wife's green card.

Posted by: burmatar at November 15, 2013 11:13 AM (khpOW)

 


The standing issue irks me no end.   You SHOULD have standing to sue, IMO, because the gubmint is actively choosing to NOT enforce immigration laws.   You did the right thing with your wife; millions of people are doing the wrong thing and being allowed to get away with it.     It's not about fairness,   it's about    unequal    treatment under    the law, and damn straight that should mean you have standing.  

 

The same goes for this Obammycare monstrosity.   You've got the Executive branch issuing waivers left,   right and center exempting this group from having to comply   right away,  and that group from having to comply right away, but requiring that THIS group absolutely complies right away, and you'd better believe that OTHER group is going to comply or it'll get the hose again.   And they're doing this all willy-nilly, with no legislative backing, using the paper thin  "At the Secretary's discretion" excuse that's baked into the bill.   It's ridiculous.  

 

"Oh, you don't have to abide by the law because you donate a lot of money to the right people and causes, so we'll give you a break.   But you guys; you guys have to follow the law because you vote for the wrong people and don't give us money."   

 

It's fucking extortion is what it is.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:18 AM (4df7R)

37 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 15, 2013 11:12 AM (4df7R)

We should play the way the Dems do, let a million lawsuits bloom, meaningful, frivolous, trivial, significant, but always keep hammering at the structure of this evil law.

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:18 AM (XdnQT)

38 32 ace at November 15, 2013 11:16 AM (/FnUH)

There's another version of the conspiracy theory that says his law Prof got to him.

Anyway something did read the meat of his bullshit punt and tell me it was not a rewrite.


Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:19 AM (9jfyN)

39 Romeo, I'm just always hunting for when WE  as a people actually have some standing to fight against this.

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:19 AM (nqBYe)

40 "The Cost of Insurance can now be tied to lifestyle choices, such as weight, or smoking, and IMO soon Alcohol use.... thus Lifestyle makes getting the Tax more likely." No, no, no! You missed Obamneycare atchitect Jonathan Gruber's sermonizing about how the "genetic lottery winners" have been paying an "artificially low price" for health insurance, and it is only fair that they give more for the greater good, sacrifices, etc.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:19 AM (Y92Nd)

41 I want this POS stricken for sure. And I'd want it done in a way that makes clear the level of treachery, corruption and CENTRAL PLANNING in the hearts of all marxist Democrats so they are so discredited as to be effectively nullified politically. But most of all, I want somebody to FUCKING PAY. For the billions of dollars both public and private squandered, and the the job market that has BEEN STRANGLED.

Posted by: ontherocks at November 15, 2013 07:20 AM (XfYgW)

42 I thought the Supreme   Court could not rule  on  a tax  issue  unless the tax had  been applied.     Roberts and the court completely ignored that restriction. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 07:20 AM (m2CN7)

43

So, 'IF' this is a Tax... then it has huge problems under the idea that Taxes must be uniform.

 

Please review tax schedules. Is there anything like a uniform tax in the federal system?

Posted by: PMRich at November 15, 2013 07:20 AM (x/BtJ)

44

I think Roberts has been suborned--extorted or blackmailed in some way--and don't believe he validated Obamacare for any higher reasons. Look at the facts on the ground: Roberts twisted logic and semantics (Obamacare as a tax?) into an unseemly pretzel to save what he knew was the most nationally destructive piece of legislation since the Fugitive Slave Act.

 

I don't see a solution to this mess coming from the Supreme Court. They haven't accomplished any postive good of note since Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935.

Posted by: troyriser at November 15, 2013 07:20 AM (V9ol4)

45 so is the govt /doctors/  hospitals to be responsible for death/malpractice/ or are the insurance companies?

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:21 AM (nqBYe)

46 It seems highly likely that they got to Roberts.

The sudden reversal and accounts from other justices that he refused to discuss it and avoided them - that just does not add up.

Also - there is no question that they have the capability to discover probably any secret he has, the only thing that would hold them back would be:

They can't discover anything (come on?)
They discover something but exercise restraint (COME ON!?)

Posted by: Artemis Belle at November 15, 2013 07:21 AM (EsxAc)

47 With a name like Obamacare, it's got to be good.

Posted by: Countrysquire at November 15, 2013 07:21 AM (LSJmV)

48 At this point, I think Obama and his cabal might actually WANT the Court to revisit Obamacare.  It would be a good way for them to save face, if the court struck it down.  They could blame the Supremes for the failure of the law to be implemented, and not themselves.  They may welcome a way out that can be blamed on someone else.

Posted by: mama wingr at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (P6QsQ)

49 Posted by: sven10077
......
You're welcome!  The more Illinois Dems we can send out of state, the better!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (f9c2L)

50 I'm not sure I want to wait a couple of years for it to get thru the federal courts in an attempt to see if the USSC grants review and then a couple of more years while they dick around with it. Just let it crash and burn with that asshole, obama.

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman, PhD Bitches! at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (kkbgQ)

51 I thought the Supreme Court could not rule on a tax issue unless the tax had been applied. Roberts and the court completely ignored that restriction. Because #shutup!

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (p9JxP)

52 so are*

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (nqBYe)

53 Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 11:16 AM (lZBBB)

I always found it amazing that there was an individual religious exemption for not paying the Obamacare "tax".

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (XdnQT)

54 "There's another version of the conspiracy theory that says his law Prof got to him.Anyway something did read the meat of his bullshit punt and tell me it was not a rewrite." The law professor helped him rewrite his shitty decision and even leaked it to the press ahead of the ruling, so Wall Street would know how to make money off the news. Kagan should have recused herself, but she and the Wise Latina were moles for the White House who figured out who to blackmail and how to get him to come over to the dark side.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:22 AM (Y92Nd)

55

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare, that it was unconstitutional, to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship.

 

Roberts is filth.  The only man more responsible for this mess is Soetero.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (uhAkr)

56 49 Chi-Town Jerry at November 15, 2013 11:22 AM (f9c2L)

Viruses are more fecund than even roaches....

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (9jfyN)

57 this law must be struck for failure of the executive to apply it equally to all citizens.

The federal government cannot accept this a principle. On principle.

There goes Selective Service, Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act, federal "aid to education," any welfare that requires a caseworker, half the mission of CDC, and...somebody take over here. The list is too damn long. And the middle class.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (xq1UY)

58 Hold it, I thought that it is the "Individual Shared Responsibility Fee". The Roberts deal smells of extortion/blackmail

Posted by: Mike Hammer at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (aDwsi)

59 "That gives Roberts the cover to say not "I was wrong" (which he won't say) but "I was right, and as I said previously this is a tax, and taxes must be levied even-handedly, and therefore this law must be struck for failure of the executive to apply it equally to all citizens.""

Especially after the Chief Executive vetoes a bill duly approved by the national legislature which competes with the Executive's imperial edict.

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (HjPtV)

60 Someone needs to highlight how the Democrats this morning lost the ability to speak coherently, and resorted to babbling "word salad," as William S. Burroughs dubbed it. HEre's the Washington Examiner link: http://tinyurl.com/mxnhpqj Check out these utterances -- it's like they suffered from a stroke or something: "House Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., said ...: "And all of us knew full well that all of our constituents, when made aware of what's in the policies, would determine at that time whether they liked what they wanted. But when they become aware of what they did not have, I don't think there's anything for us to apologize for." Seriously, I'd be calling 911 if I was that guy's wife. They can alleviate the effects of s stroke if they act quickly. Pelosi made even less sense, but that's par for the course in PelosiLand.

Posted by: zombie at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (+cx5n)

61 At this point, I think Obama and his cabal might actually WANT the Court to revisit Obamacare. It would be a good way for them to save face, if the court struck it down. They could blame the Supremes for the failure of the law to be implemented, and not themselves. They may welcome a way out that can be blamed on someone else.
Posted by: mama wingr
...........
Good point.  However, that wouldn't happen until well after the November elections next year..  So, it will be schweet to see these libtards running scared for a whole year.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (f9c2L)

62 I always found it amazing that there was an individual religious exemption for not paying the Obamacare "tax". Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 11:22 AM (XdnQT) That's only for Muslims, because Obama is a puppet of OPEC.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:23 AM (Y92Nd)

63

I thought the Supreme Court could not rule on a tax issue unless the tax had been applied. Roberts and the court completely ignored that restriction.

 

"We had to rule it a tax so that     we   could     treat it as a tax."

 

- John Iscariot Roberts

 

 

"We had to pass the bill to see what's in it."

 

-Nazi PeloKKKi

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:24 AM (4df7R)

64 "... to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship." Um, no, not so much. Recent events have led me to a totally different conclusion, to-wit: >I believe CJ Roberts is way smarter, in both the legal and the overall sense, than he's given credit for. >I think he saw an opportunity to do something substantive (and totally unexpected) that would allow these events we're seeing to unfold. >Why? Because he admires and thinks like first CJ John Marshall did, which means allowing the country AND the Congress-critters to suffer the consequences of their own actions. The "non-partisan" idea may be one part of this, but more important is the message he sent to Congress that "it's not our job to clean up your mess." Let's say he agrees that this law is bad policy but knows the Liberals will never back off of this unless forced by overwhelming public disgust. Yeah, I'm a "glass half-full" kinda guy, but look at what's happened in just the past 2 weeks? (And the real fun starts in January 2014.)

Posted by: WildWillyC at November 15, 2013 07:24 AM (Jfxjt)

65 54 Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 11:22 AM (Y92Nd)

Pretty much but as I said in the morning thread at least we're a Chiquita Banana Republic....

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:24 AM (9jfyN)

66 It seems odd to me that a supreme court justice could get nominated and then confirmed to the bench with a big thing like his kids' adoptions not being totally above board hanging over him. But, I live in crazy world now so perhaps the Democrats willingness to confirm him had everything to do with them knowing they had this as leverage to pressure him.

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at November 15, 2013 07:24 AM (RZ8pf)

67 I think Roberts went all social justice bullshit and it was a result of religion and possible his wife. Where does he attend church? What sermons does he listen to?

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman, PhD Bitches! at November 15, 2013 07:24 AM (kkbgQ)

68 At this point, I think Obama and his cabal might actually WANT the Court to revisit Obamacare. It would be a good way for them to save face, if the court struck it down. They could blame the Supremes for the failure of the law to be implemented, and not themselves. They may welcome a way out that can be blamed on someone else. After the way Obarky stiffed the Supremes in his first term? They'll decline to review.

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 07:25 AM (p9JxP)

69 I'm no legal expert by I can't see how anybody has standing.

So if my small business with 45 employees is forced to pay a tax while my competitor with 55 employees is allowed to avoid the tax, why wouldn't I be harmed?

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at November 15, 2013 07:25 AM (+lsX1)

70 "Especially after the Chief Executive vetoes a bill duly approved by the national legislature which competes with the Executive's imperial edict." Like the House will do anything.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:25 AM (Y92Nd)

71 they can tinker and fuck around all they want but I still don't see young people committing economic suicide to sign up for overpriced shitty insurance just because it's a law.

Posted by: X at November 15, 2013 07:25 AM (KHo8t)

72 Romeo, I'm just always hunting for when WE as a people actually have some standing to fight against this.

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 11:19 AM (nqBYe)


It seems to me that the way the mostly liberal government law cabal have structured things, you, as an individual, don't even have standing to determine if you have standing!

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:25 AM (XdnQT)

73 Repeal, repeal, repeal. It's the only way. IMHO, it will soon to be possible to be done legislatively.

Posted by: Countrysquire at November 15, 2013 07:26 AM (LSJmV)

74 36 MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit:
The standing issue irks me no end. You SHOULD have standing to sue, IMO, because the gubmint is actively choosing to NOT enforce immigration laws. You did the right thing with your wife; millions of people are doing the wrong thing and being allowed to get away with it. It's not about fairness, it's about unequal treatment under the law, and damn straight that should mean you have standing.

*************************

No, that's really a bad idea. The federal courts have to deal with tens of thousands of pro se prisoner lawsuits already, where they allege that some right or other was violated. If every citizen had standing to sue the government when he or she felt like it was doing something wrong, the number of lawsuits would be in the millions and the system would be paralyzed. And the leftists are a lot better at this than we are. Soros would fund OFA to file thousands of lawsuits claiming that the government isn't doing something it's supposed to be doing. Finally, do you really want every federal official being second-guessed by a judge, even more so than they already are?

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:26 AM (HubSo)

75 No one is going to take his children from him or his wife. Hell, aren't they old enough to be drinking and driving by now?

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman, PhD Bitches! at November 15, 2013 07:26 AM (kkbgQ)

76 So if my small business with 45 employees is forced to pay a tax while my competitor with 55 employees is allowed to avoid the tax, why wouldn't I be harmed? Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at November 15, 2013 11:25 AM (+lsX1) I could see a wave of those cases making their way through the courts, and one scenario is Obamacare dies by a thousand paper cuts.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:26 AM (Y92Nd)

77 Thanks, Ace. I think this is right on. I don't understand why conservatives have been so eager to agree with libs that Robert's decision validates Obamacare. It doesn't. It simply makes the mandate constitutional--if it is a tax. But then it leaves the big question on the table. Is the mandate a constitutional tax? It leaves the door wide open to a challenge to the constitutionality of the tax itself. And on that basis Obamacare would lose--because forcing people to buy insurance in order to fund a government program is not a legitimate tax. In other words, what Roberts did was to put the onus back on Congress to do the job they're supposed to do.

Posted by: Caliban at November 15, 2013 07:26 AM (DrC22)

78 This one could conceivably make it to the Supremes, but likely not until 2015. Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 11:14 AM (HubSo) There is a way to get the Supremes themselves to fast track a case... but THEY have to choose to do so... There are a number of cases going through the courts that could impact O'care.... but the legal system is not designed for fast action... even in times of emergency... IMO the only way to get this fast tracked to the Supremes is to get a Judge to call this whole thing UnConstitutional and grant a STAY, equal application of the law... and Uniform Tax question.... because those will create immediate harm to many many people... Otherwise, there damage will be done to the country, long before the Courts get off their Ass.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 07:27 AM (lZBBB)

79 I'd say before pitching this back up to the SC, someone better investigate the Roberts adoption and expose it if there is something to it.

Posted by: Havedash at November 15, 2013 07:27 AM (gvqyH)

80

Overturn it?

 

Isn't that like hiring a hit man to knock off someone who's terminally ill? Same result, but with many more strings.

 

If it can die under public revolt, that's better than letting the Left blame it on a 'court bending to the political winds.' Unless a court decision would represent  a stake through the heart.

Posted by: CJ at November 15, 2013 07:27 AM (9KqcB)

81
To me all the previous exemptions (mostly capitol hill to be honest) seem to not have given "equal treatment under the law".

Secondly, I would say if I was head of an insurance company or on the board, I would say no to complying with B.O's press conference exemption.  You are asking for a world of hurt by not complying with what is written in the law, whether the govt says nevermind or not.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 15, 2013 07:27 AM (iGPSR)

82 Second chance for Robert's? Why do I feel my asshole puckering? 

Posted by: dananjcon at November 15, 2013 07:27 AM (wmU4G)

83 Seriously, I'd be calling 911 if I was that guy's wife. They can alleviate the effects of s stroke if they act quickly.

Pelosi made even less sense, but that's par for the course in PelosiLand.

Posted by: zombie at November 15, 2013 11:23 AM (+cx5n)


It just looks like standard political double-talk to me. It's not meant to have meaningful content, it's meant to fill the time necessary to go from one locked conference room to another.

Posted by: joncelli at November 15, 2013 07:27 AM (RD7QR)

84 There goes Selective Service, Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act, federal "aid to education," any welfare that requires a caseworker, half the mission of CDC, and...somebody take over here. The list is too damn long. And the middle class.
Posted by: Stringer Davis

Yeah, the Selective Service TAX, the Civil Rights TAX, and the Voting Rights TAX, the CDC TAX.,etc., etc. .

Don't quit your day job.


Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 07:28 AM (HjPtV)

85 No, that's really a bad idea. The federal courts have to deal with tens of thousands of pro se prisoner lawsuits already, where they allege that some right or other was violated. If every citizen had standing to sue the government when he or she felt like it was doing something wrong, the number of lawsuits would be in the millions and the system would be paralyzed.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 11:26 AM (HubSo)

 

That's just it.   It's not a matter of feelings.   We don't FEEL the government is doing something wrong;   they're breaking their own frigging laws.   When someone breaks the law they should be liable for those actions.  

 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:28 AM (4df7R)

86 That's only for Muslims, because Obama is a puppet of OPEC.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 11:23 AM (Y92Nd)


Well of course the primary protected class of muzlims would be exempted by Caliph Barky, but I thought that the Amish were also exempted (and maybe a few others).

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:28 AM (XdnQT)

87 Zombie - Thanks for the Clyburn quote. It is like witnessing a car crash. You want to look away, but you can't.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at November 15, 2013 07:29 AM (aDwsi)

88 It's no slam-dunk, I know. And the usual judicial response to a failure to enforce a law even-handedly is to demand the executive enforce it even-handedly, not to strike down the law altogether. But might as well take the shot and see what happens. A law is only what JEF deems to be a law. Even if this action were taken, do you think the SCOAMF would respond? Or, just... go golfing. There has been much lawlessness, yet nothing is ever done/resolved.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 15, 2013 07:29 AM (IXrOn)

89 The President isn't not enforcing a tax, he's not enforcing prosecution against insurance companies for offering illegal insurance. Sorry, I think they're grasping at straws. This thing will be a mill around Barack's neck until the end.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at November 15, 2013 07:29 AM (09o/X)

90 "Also - there is no question that they have the capability to discover probably any secret he has, the only thing that would hold them back would be:" Snowden is in Russia and is Putin's favorite toy after his Super Bowl ring. He knows everything.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:30 AM (Y92Nd)

91 I always found it amazing that there was an individual religious exemption for not paying the Obamacare "tax".
Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 11:22 AM
---------------------------------

Is this actually true, and if so what are the mechanics of claiming this exemption.

Posted by: irright at November 15, 2013 07:30 AM (pMGkg)

92 ?

Posted by: irright at November 15, 2013 07:30 AM (8GKDa)

93

As I remember it,  the question was whether this was a tax and the only way  the mandate could operate as constitutional  is if it were a tax  but since  no one was ever 'taxed'  the Supreme Court by law could not address the issue.

 

That they did was more  egregious  than the ruling itself  to me.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 07:30 AM (m2CN7)

94 Paranoidgirl,

I also have some of that tin foil hate thing happening.
I constantly wonder if most of our leadership is compromised by blackmail . and possibly  allowd positions because they can be persuaded  in the right manner.

Posted by: willow at November 15, 2013 07:30 AM (nqBYe)

95 then it has huge problems under the idea that Taxes must be uniform.

That doesn't mean shit in post-Constitutional Amerika. 

Calvinball

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at November 15, 2013 07:30 AM (Xlbr8)

96 I'd think there are better grounds for impeachment than another run through the Supreme Court. Besides, going to SCOTUS would take months... at least. Let's pretend that SCOTUS takes it up and rules to throw it out. Okay... now what? Policies are already cancelled, premiums are already up, and all the actuarial tables are in place for the year. Best case- MAYBE you could start reversing things in 2015, but you'd need to start with a massive bailout of the insurance industry due to the chaos in the intervening time. You can't unring the bell. This is the equivalent to bombing Hiroshima then deciding to uninvent the bomb. Hiroshima is still rubble and the infrastructure is still in place for a very different world. There is no going back.

Posted by: Damiano the Economic Traitor at November 15, 2013 07:31 AM (j0wOO)

97 Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 11:26 AM (HubSo) But if the choice is then, an out of control Government and no Freedom for the People? or clogged Courts??? I'll gladly take clogged courts.... But the solution is make the LAWYERS have some skin in the game.... where if they LOOSE, they don't get paid.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 07:31 AM (lZBBB)

98 You are asking for a world of hurt by not complying with what is written in the law, whether the govt says nevermind or not.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 15, 2013 11:27 AM (iGPSR)



Doesn't Article V say that verbal assurances made during a Presidential Press Conference  always override written law as well as the Constitution?

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:31 AM (XdnQT)

99 I learned my lesson about saving things in my cart for later because if you aren't paying attention and you click the checkout button while you are in the midst of dog and kid chaos you end up getting more than you expected in that smiley face Amazon box on your doorstep...

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at November 15, 2013 07:33 AM (RZ8pf)

100

Let's pretend that SCOTUS takes it up and rules to throw it out. Okay... now what? Policies are already cancelled, premiums are already up, and all the actuarial tables are in place for the year. Best case- MAYBE you could start reversing things in 2015, but you'd need to start with a massive bailout of the insurance industry due to the chaos in the intervening time.

 

This is going to happen no matter what,   whether it dies on its own or is    overthrown via legislative or judicial action.    It's going to take at least -- AT LEAST -- a year to recover.   But if you want to start fixing things, the sooner this bitch of a "law" is overturned, the better.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:33 AM (4df7R)

101

And then there is the little matter of the Unions being exempted from one of the "taxes" written into the mandate - that  "Universal" $63 "fee" which is supposed to pay for the insurance companies' own insurance if they don't get enough enrollees the first 3 years.

 

Would that not count as "unequal" taxation as well?

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) at November 15, 2013 07:33 AM (PZ6/M)

102 Can the insurers take legal action over Obama changing the rules at the last minute and all but telling them they must re-offer expired plans?

Posted by: Lizzy at November 15, 2013 07:33 AM (JRmiD)

103 mrp, rtfp. Specifically the first line, in italics. Then you may apologize.
I quit my day job ten years ago. You?

Posted by: Stringer Davis at November 15, 2013 07:33 AM (xq1UY)

104 I saw Martha Reeves and the Vandellas open for The Supremes in '66 at the Apollo.

Posted by: Countrysquire at November 15, 2013 07:34 AM (LSJmV)

105

This is getting out of control and someone is going to er, something.......

 

 

from that movie, you know

Posted by: Fred Q. at November 15, 2013 07:34 AM (W6iIX)

106 Posted by: irright at November 15, 2013 11:30 AM (pMGkg)

Good questions, for which I do not have answers, except that I have repeatedly heard that muz and Amish can claim exemption from the insurance requirement.

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:34 AM (XdnQT)

107 "I'd think there are better grounds for impeachment than another run through the Supreme Court." YES! TAKE THE SENATE AND IMPEACH HIM!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:34 AM (Y92Nd)

108 OT and spiffy.

How to use a block of concrete to abrade a can lid so you can eat the contents of the can when SHTF.

http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2013/11/05/open-can-without-can-opener

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 15, 2013 07:34 AM (0fdrC)

109 87 Zombie - Thanks for the Clyburn quote. It is like witnessing a car crash. You want to look away, but you can't. Posted by: Mike Hammer I can see the administration using that quote as the basis for ads to convince people to sign up: "Do you like what you want? Do you want what you like? When you become aware of that which you do not have, must others apologize? Of course not! Determine the status of your likes and wants today with ObamaCare! Brosurance Without Apologies!" I can see that on billboards in major metropolitan areas. Do it!

Posted by: zombie at November 15, 2013 07:35 AM (+cx5n)

110 In other words, what Roberts did was to put the onus back on Congress to do the job they're supposed to do. Posted by: Caliban

That's about where I am.  If the Roberts Court had struck down ObamaCare, the attack against the Supreme Court would have been devastating.  24/7 Congress, Executive Branch, and the MSM braying against a dictatorial court.  What's done is done, but with the Robert's tax ruling, the Dems own the thing 100%.

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 07:35 AM (HjPtV)

111 Can the insurers take legal action over Obama changing the rules at the last minute and all but telling them they must re-offer expired plans? #nostanding

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 07:35 AM (p9JxP)

112 Posted by: Lizzy at November 15, 2013 11:33 AM (JRmiD) Or even better, the part where he DIRECTS them to send letters, and say what those letters must hold??? Can you say Freedom of Speech problem? Especially as the Supremes have declared that Corporations are people for Speech purposes?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 07:35 AM (lZBBB)

113 85 That's just it. It's not a matter of feelings. We don't FEEL the government is doing something wrong; they're breaking their own frigging laws. When someone breaks the law they should be liable for those actions.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 15, 2013 11:28 AM (4df7R)

********************************

I'm 100% in agreement. But the federal courts are a terrible way to make the executive branch do its job. It's convoluted and expensive enough when you have people who have actual injuries at the hands of government actions. Imagine what a disaster it would be if thousands of Soros-funded action groups were able to get their day in court over every aspect of life. It's bad enough as it is. And I'm not sure I trust the judges, either.

The solutions that the Framers gave us were either to impeach people or vote them out. Unfortunately, the situation we have today is that roughly half of the country agrees with JEF and his like.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:35 AM (HubSo)

114

"It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare, that it was unconstitutional, to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship. "

And how, pray tell, do you think you know THAT?

It is just as accurate to say that it is well known that Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare to keep his kids' adoption records from being published in the Huffington Post and from having their birth mothers interviewed by Rachel Maddow.

 

Posted by: Powderhouse Rules at November 15, 2013 07:35 AM (Xv7f/)

115 Can the insurers take legal action over Obama changing the rules at the last minute and all but telling them they must re-offer expired plans?

Posted by: Lizzy at November 15, 2013 11:33 AM (JRmiD)

 

I don't think so, unless he or his minions forces them to do so.   He said that insurers "may" continue to offer    cancelled plans to previous customers, not that they must.   It was nothing but a political shell game to place the blame back on the insurance companies and away from himself,   because the LIVs and FSA are too fucking stupid to understand how either    government   or insurance operate.   Rather like Obammy himself.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:36 AM (4df7R)

116 Obama's historical, there can be no doubt...as in the biggest failure in presidential history.

Posted by: model_1066 at November 15, 2013 07:36 AM (MQ0jT)

117 It isn't a tax.  It's a fine.  A fine for not buying a product the government says you must buy.  If you buy insurance, you aren't "taxed".  If you don't, you are.  That's not taxation, that's a coercive fine.

Posted by: mama wingr at November 15, 2013 07:37 AM (P6QsQ)

118 I'm on CSPAN rambling  like some senile douche.

Posted by: John Dingle Berry D- MICH at November 15, 2013 07:37 AM (ugAvG)

119 Fossil Rep John Dingell is blameshaming the Republicans. I'm afraid he won't make it through his three minute rant!

Posted by: boned to the bone at November 15, 2013 07:37 AM (Ph479)

120 I had a depressing thought.  If we get rid of Obama, we get Biden.  If we get rid of Biden, we get Boner. If we get rid of Boner, we get John Fucking Kerry.

I was hoping Alexander Haig would be in there somewhere.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 07:37 AM (Hx5uv)

121

I think we have already blown through the Bananna Republic zone and are headed into Chavez-ville

 

 

 

Posted by: Fred Q. at November 15, 2013 07:37 AM (W6iIX)

122 Obama's historical, there can be no doubt...as in the biggest failure in presidential history.

Posted by: model_1066 at November 15, 2013 11:36 AM (MQ0jT)

 

In terms of corruption    and cronyism,      he's   so bad   that     if he looks up,  he can ALMOST see    the soles of Harding's shoes.    

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:37 AM (4df7R)

123 Where has the Sasquatch/First "Lady" been lately?

Posted by: model_1066 at November 15, 2013 07:38 AM (MQ0jT)

124 “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - Fast & Furious - IRS targeting - "Recess" NLSB appointments - Going to war in Libya without authorization - Benghazi (the murders & gun running) - Selective immigration law enforcement - Selective Obamacare enforcement - Lying to Congress & the American public about Obamacare "Mr. Former President, we're going to need the keys to the White House. No worries, we have a nice room for you in Levinworth."

Posted by: Damiano the Economic Traitor at November 15, 2013 07:38 AM (j0wOO)

125 Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 11:35 AM (HubSo)

In case you haven't noticed, I think thousands of Soros' funded groups are already clogging the courts, see also cases from SPLC, NAACP, Sierra club, etc.

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:38 AM (XdnQT)

126 That's about where I am. If the Roberts Court had struck down ObamaCare, the attack against the Supreme Court would have been devastating. 24/7 Congress, Executive Branch, and the MSM braying against a dictatorial court. What's done is done, but with the Robert's tax ruling, the Dems own the thing 100%.

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 11:35 AM (HjPtV)

 

The Court should have never accepted the case and in essence  that would have been sending it back to Congress. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 07:38 AM (m2CN7)

127 Fossil Rep John Dingell is blameshaming the Republicans. I'm afraid he won't make it through his three minute rant!

 

Posted by: boned to the bone at November 15, 2013 11:37 AM (Ph479)

 

Don't go getting my hopes up.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:38 AM (4df7R)

128 123 model_1066 at November 15, 2013 11:38 AM (MQ0jT)

There was an emergency Diplomatic Corps meeting back on Kronos...

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:39 AM (9jfyN)

129 Let's keep it simple and say that, since this is a tax, it's in violation of the Origination Clause which mandates that all bills for raising revenue must arise in the House. And I'm pretty sure that the stunt the Dems pulled by creating a dummy bill in the House which was stripped of all it's language when transferred to the Senate doesn't pass muster. That is obviously a gross fraud on the Origination Clause. If Roberts needs to cover his ass, all he needs to do is point to all the mandated cancellations which can only be replaced by overpriced premiums which are needed to subsidize other people's health care needs. If the difference between the old premium and the new premium isn't a tax, I don't know what is. Then Roberts can say, "when I ruled on ACA a year ago, I was led to believe this tax would not occur. Things have changed."

Posted by: Callmelennie at November 15, 2013 07:39 AM (Z6Bqu)

130 I'm sick of being used as a pawn by the Ruling Class. Wish I could go off the grid, but I don't have the wherewithall and never will under this gamed system.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 07:39 AM (zDsvJ)

131 I've changed my mind. It's a floor wax and non-dairy dessert topping.

Posted by: John Roberts at November 15, 2013 07:39 AM (oB1iQ)

132 It isn't a tax. It's a fine. A fine for not buying a product the government says you must buy. If you buy insurance, you aren't "taxed". If you don't, you are. That's not taxation, that's a coercive fine.

Posted by: mama wingr at November 15, 2013 11:37 AM (P6QsQ)

 

I agree 100%.   But...

 

"It's a tax."

-John Iscariot Roberts, Chief Justice, SCOTUS

 

*punches him*

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (4df7R)

133 TGIF!   Par  -tay  time!  

Posted by: Joe Biden at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (q4QfH)

134 It's no slam-dunk, I know. And the usual judicial response to a failure to enforce a law even-handedly is to demand the executive enforce it even-handedly, not to strike down the law altogether. But might as well take the shot and see what happens. -------------------------- To which Obama says, "Fuck off" like he always does, without consequence. Status quo ante.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (CJjw5)

135 I'd like to see some PACs airing commercials "thanking"  Democrat senators for voting for this POS.  

Something like a guy mournfully loading up the moving truck, pic of nice house in the background,  pic  wife dejectedly cleaning a run-down place with for rent sign.   Voice over "If you or your family or friends have experienced similar results as a result of the ACA, please make sure to inform Senator Udall how you feel about him voting for this act on Christmas Eve 2009 to make sure it was rammed through before a duly elected senator who ran on blocking the bill could take the place of the temporary appointee who voted with the Democrat party"  

Posted by: PaleRider at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (FYUWS)

136 And if this was some three dimensional chess  playing by Roberts,   he   lost his Queens  after two moves.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (m2CN7)

137 Welcome back to Beverly Hillbillies episode #165, in which Jethro learns Presidentin' is hard.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (659DL)

138 57 this law must be struck for failure of the executive to apply it equally to all citizens. The federal government cannot accept this a principle. On principle. There goes Selective Service, Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act, federal "aid to education," any welfare that requires a caseworker, half the mission of CDC, and...somebody take over here. The list is too damn long. Posted by: Stringer Davis at November 15, 2013 11:23 AM (xq1UY) Sounds like a good start.

Posted by: rickl at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (zoehZ)

139 "It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare, that it was unconstitutional, to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship."

In other words, judicial review is a sham, and the Court has pitched its own piece of the Mandate of Heaven over the side.

Posted by: Ken at November 15, 2013 07:40 AM (q8NTr)

140 Whatever they had on Roberts they've still got.  I see no hope for a change from SCOTUS.

Posted by: creeper at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (eR310)

141 Posted by: Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 11:39 AM (zDsvJ)

Just take a deep breath and resolve to be a quiet serf, you'll be better off in the long run!

Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (XdnQT)

142 I've changed my mind. It's a floor wax and non-dairy dessert topping.

Posted by: John Roberts at November 15, 2013 11:39 AM (oB1iQ)

 

well played

Posted by: Fred Q. at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (W6iIX)

143 130 Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 11:39 AM (zDsvJ)

In time you may.

Like the cylons I have a plan.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (9jfyN)

144 I'm such a fucking brainless fugly scrunt. Move over Dingleberry, my turn to repeat the talking points at the podium NOW!

Posted by: Jan Schakowshy D-ILLINOIS at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (ugAvG)

145

"And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship."

 

Ace, you bring the funny even this early?  Wow.

 

Not quibbling with your assessment of Roberts' bizarre motivation.  But if true, the guy is an idiot on the level of John McCain or Obama.  Not to mention - like them - spectacularly unfit for public service.

 

The court's job is to do its (mostly unconstitutional, as it was allowed to metastasize in practice, Marbury) job.  Again - anybody listen to the oral arguments over this absurd law?  All sides - all - beclowned themselves, exhibiting no understanding of the basic topic under discussion (insurance), and making it obvious they were completely out of their lane even discussing it.

 

Rule of law in the US is almost entirely inertial at this point.  That is most people follow the rules most of the time, simply because they do (sort of like Italians just don't follow the tax laws).  Cultural.  But beyond the fundamental lawlessness in many ways that has been developing for decades, the last few years have featured histrionic and jaw-dropping lawlessness from above (courts and guvamint) that pretty much puts the US in a middle category between Switzerland and Zimbabwe.  Again, most will scoff at this (legal types mostly will because they're mostly just narrow-minded technicians, not thoughtful), but that's because most don't get out much (literally or intelectually).

 

Posted by: non-purist at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (afQnV)

146 Maybe it's because I grew up among real men, strong, brave men who never backed away from trouble..... but I find it extremely hard to believe that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States would not have had the balls to call a presser and and say "These m*th*f*cka*s are trying to extort/blackmail me." Seriously. And I am firmly in the Let Them Own It camp. The Republicans need to just sit down and STFU. Nothing but "I told you so" needs to come out of their mouths. They damn sure shouldn't agree to any kind of delay, because it won't take the sheep long to just settle down and drink their medicine and accept these high premiums. They need to take advantage of all the outrage, because it'll eventually settle down.

Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (XH4i8)

147 (Anyone want some bourbon-glazed salmon?  Sally Kohn was on the teevee in the breakroom when I went to reheat my lunch.  Bleah.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (ZKzrr)

148

Zombie - that quote as relates to real life:

Bosses left wing brother got his "new and improved" policy quote. Now at 3X the monthly rate, 2X deductible - BUT - those transgender operations that he never wanted are now covered.

 

We were totally enjoying that story

 

Posted by: PMRich at November 15, 2013 07:41 AM (x/BtJ)

149

We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House



Posted by: John McCain at November 15, 2013 07:42 AM (Pr6hk)

150 The solutions that the Framers gave us were either to impeach people or vote them out. Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 11:35 AM (HubSo) The framers also thought there were other avenues if things got bad.... 1> They thought that States were Sovereign... and could secede.... That the States Appointing Military Officers, and having an armed Populace, would check Federal Power... 2> They thought the Senate, being DIRECT representatives of the States, would put a check on Federal Power. Option 1 was killed by the Civil War... Option 2 killed by Constitutional Amendment...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 07:42 AM (lZBBB)

151 Yeah that would be something if Roberts and the Supremes overturned themselves and this cluster of a law.

Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at November 15, 2013 07:42 AM (HEa5q)

152 125 Posted by: Hrothgar Medicare and DMV Administraitor at November 15, 2013 11:38 AM (XdnQT)

In case you haven't noticed, I think thousands of Soros' funded groups are already clogging the courts, see also cases from SPLC, NAACP, Sierra club, etc.

**********************************

Correct. And they all have "test case" plaintiffs who can , at least in theory, show an actual injury to themselves. Just imagine how bad it would be if an actual injury weren't necessary, just your opinion that some government official isn't doing his job.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:42 AM (HubSo)

153 It's not a tax. It's a tax.
-

But is it a tax tax?

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 07:42 AM (Hx5uv)

154 Well, my plan involves my long hair... "extra" kidney.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 07:43 AM (zDsvJ)

155

27.  "Whatever he had on Roberts must have been pretty good..."




Roberts' kids' adoption records and a couple of women ready to say "the Chief Justice stole my baby", would be a good bet.

 





 

Posted by: Powderhouse Rules at November 15, 2013 07:43 AM (Xv7f/)

156 What would make this entire clusterfuck even more surreal is if the Supremes rule it unconstitutional on some other grounds.


Justice John "Jim Joyner" Roberts is a complete and total disgrace!

Posted by: Kreplach at November 15, 2013 07:43 AM (qH/2Y)

157

60 Someone needs to highlight how the Democrats this morning lost the ability to speak coherently, and resorted to babbling "word salad,"

 

*****

 

 

It is evident that the stress is wearing on the Dems in Congress.  They are tap dancing like Steve Martin in "The Jerk". 

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at November 15, 2013 07:43 AM (N/Sup)

158 This might be wimping out, but I say don't take it. If the case loses, it makes it even harder to overturn the law in some other fashion. We MIGHT be able to try and a court to overturn the political whims influencing the law -- something like an injunction or whatever the technical word is, but I doubt the whole law would fall.

Posted by: Matt S. at November 15, 2013 07:44 AM (m7EhJ)

159 Decent intro into tax equal protection.

http://www.alston.com/taxblog/?entry=4605

Posted by: flounder at November 15, 2013 07:44 AM (Kkt/i)

160

It's not a tax. It's a tax.

 

-

But is it a tax tax?

 

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 11:42 AM (Hx5uv)

 

 

No, it's an Individual Shared    Responsibility Payment tax,   prole.   Get it straight.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:44 AM (4df7R)

161 "But might as well take the shot and see what happens."

There's a saying in the sniper community:  you can't bring the bullet back.

Meaning you'd best be damn sure.

Posted by: tangonine at November 15, 2013 07:44 AM (x3YFz)

162 "mrp, rtfp. Specifically the first line, in italics. Then you may apologize.
I quit my day job ten years ago. You?
Posted by: Stringer Davis

Nope.  No apology.  Every law has winners and losers, and the discussion and the theme of Ace's post has to do with the definition of the mandate as a "tax" and the effect of that ruling on Barry's edict yesterday.  Sincerely sorry to hear about the change in your job status.  The word "Stringer" led me to believe you were currently a professional writer..

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 07:44 AM (HjPtV)

163 131 I've changed my mind. It's a floor wax and non-dairy dessert topping. Posted by: John Roberts at November 15, 2013 11:39 AM (oB1iQ) Apparently, an anal lubricant as well.

Posted by: model_1066 at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (MQ0jT)

164

Oh, and a bit late, but - Krauthammer really has gone full retard, huh?  This little dust-up is going to be the end of liberalism?  This is stupid on the level of Frank Rich or Krugtron or Eugene Robinson, et al.  Wish I could be paid to offer up thoughtless, silly, lazy commentary on the issues of the day.

Posted by: non-purist at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (afQnV)

165 "It's a tax and yet it's not a tax." - future ruling by the cowardly John Roberts what saves Obamacare again.

Posted by: Cachaca at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (0cMkb)

166 The framers also thought there were other avenues if things got bad.... 1> They thought that States were Sovereign... and could secede.... That the States Appointing Military Officers, and having an armed Populace, would check Federal Power... 2> They thought the Senate, being DIRECT representatives of the States, would put a check on Federal Power. Option 1 was killed by the Civil War... The Constitution is not a suicide pact.......

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (p9JxP)

167 154 Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 11:43 AM (zDsvJ)

We need to get you blood typed...

Wife only has one.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (9jfyN)

168 So which performance of Preznit FIFY was worse? Denver debate with Romney? Or yesterday's "announcement" and the q&a after?

Posted by: the littl shyning man at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (tmFlQ)

169 What's done is done, but with the Robert's tax ruling, the Dems own the thing 100%. Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 11:35 AM (HjPtV) Most importantly, he ruled against the Commerce Clause, which is why they've had such a hard time setting up the exchanges. They didn't see that coming, and they had to do their endzone dance and seem all confident. But the law is unraveling, because they can't *force* the young and healthy to sign up, and the tax is not only preferable to them, but also a source of its unpopularity.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (Y92Nd)

170 Cont'd from 159

As a matter of legal reasoning the cases purport to come down to what distinctions in taxation are rational for equal protection purposes. The majority opinion in the new decision stated these decisional principles, which are not really in dispute: 

The taxing distinction must have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The government need not articulate the purpose. Rationality means the legitimate government purpose is plausibly served by the distinction.
I cannot steal it all.  It's an easy read.

Posted by: flounder at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (Kkt/i)

171 Is anybody else expecting a lively Thanksgiving family get-together this month? 

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (N/Sup)

172 Seriously, people, write to your local papers.  Send in letters about all this.   They won't print them all, but they'll print some of them.  And "some" multipled by "lots" equals eyeballs,   if not from the LIVs then from the Congress critters.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:45 AM (4df7R)

173 I'm entertaining today.

Posted by: CSPAN at November 15, 2013 07:46 AM (ugAvG)

174 Even though ObamaCare is a gift to the conservative movement, I still would have preferred it struck down as some sort of line in the sand.

Roberts folded under political pressure no doubt, the Supreme Court at one time was a non-political body, but that's long gone.  Funny how liberal justices are never intimidated.

I don't know a good way to wrangle their power in without some sort of revolution, so for now, I would just say conservatives need to play the game on a new battlefield. Ultimately, it comes down to winning elections consistently and it's going to take time.

What Roberts did do though is basically give Congress a blank check to write whatever laws it wants as long as it's a change in the tax code.  I would exploit that with things like school vouchers, tax unions that don't allow voluntary membership, etc.

Posted by: McAdams at November 15, 2013 07:46 AM (DroxO)

175 It's not a tax. It's a tax. - But is it a tax tax? It's the equivalent of not being able to buy the package deal without the body paint for Rio on Kayak tax. With a $10K deductible. But not for lesbians. Or something.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at November 15, 2013 07:46 AM (659DL)

176 Obama's historical, there can be no doubt...as in the biggest failure in presidential history.
-

So far.

Hillary!/Warren 2016.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 07:46 AM (Hx5uv)

177
This sounds like Megan grasping at straws.

Related: I once recommended an article written by McArdle here. I linked to it, saying it was worth some point she made.

With perhaps one exception the entire Moron Horde lambasted me for even considering anything written by her. I got tore open a brand new asshole for offering an article written by (according to the Horde) such an obvious idiot.

Does she now have creds here? If so, why?

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 15, 2013 07:47 AM (tOkJB)

178 Is anybody else expecting a lively Thanksgiving family get-together this month?

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at November 15, 2013 11:45 AM (N/Sup)

 

No, thank God.   I don't have the money    to post    bail.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:47 AM (4df7R)

179 HAHAHA! Mcdermott accusing the Repubs of not being transparent and of being socialists!

Posted by: CSPAN at November 15, 2013 07:47 AM (ugAvG)

180 Megan McArdle in Bloomberg "Obama care is what ever Obama says it is" one comment: "It is incredible to listen to Republicans whining about the law they are doing their best to sabotage. If the Republican states had stepped up and done their duty instead of trying to prevent people from getting health insurance so they could find something to justify their irrational hate for Obama, the process would be a lot smoother." I've got news for you, jackhole, the Republican states did their duty. They saw it was a shitty law and elected not to go there.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at November 15, 2013 07:48 AM (HsTG8)

181 171 Seamus Muldoon at November 15, 2013 11:45 AM (N/Sup)

I'm sitting this one out...

My best friend from high school who is not my son's Godfather is coming down to let his son visit his girlfriend graduating from boot camp...

then I will cook a simple meal for wife or she will bake her lasagna a true joy for her and we'll sleep.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:48 AM (9jfyN)

182 >>But is it a tax tax?

No, it's a Share Responsibility Fee. - the IRS

Posted by: Lizzy at November 15, 2013 07:48 AM (JRmiD)

183 I was out of town without internet service yesterday so I missed all the Obamafix brouhaha. All I have to say on the matter is this. My husband's company stopped offering our insurance plan because the insurance company punted it into the sun. It doesn't exist anymore. I'm not even sure the subsidiary that managed our plan exists anymore. It can't simply be finger snapped back into existence, even by our God King. I suspect there are many others in a similar situation.

Posted by: Lauren at November 15, 2013 07:48 AM (hFL/3)

184 Is anybody else expecting a lively Thanksgiving family get-together this month? No. Both families are hard right. :-)

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 07:49 AM (p9JxP)

185 Does she now have creds here? If so, why?

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 15, 2013 11:47 AM (tOkJB)

 

Meh, ace posts her stuff a lot.   I continue to believe she's a fucking idiot and a hack, which is why i don't read her    articles.  

 

But ace's ideas, as inspired by her dumbfuckery, are generally interesting and worth exploring.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:49 AM (4df7R)

186 "The Divine Right of Drama Queens"

Posted by: The upcoming Obama biography at November 15, 2013 07:49 AM (R6JT1)

187
FLASHBACK: Obama 2007: 'I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution'...

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 07:49 AM (Hx5uv)

188 144 non-purist at November 15, 2013 11:41 AM (afQnV)

Rule of law in the US is almost entirely inertial at this point. That is most people follow the rules most of the time, simply because they do (sort of like Italians just don't follow the tax laws). Cultural. But beyond the fundamental lawlessness in many ways that has been developing for decades, the last few years have featured histrionic and jaw-dropping lawlessness from above (courts and guvamint) that pretty much puts the US in a middle category between Switzerland and Zimbabwe. Again, most will scoff at this (legal types mostly will because they're mostly just narrow-minded technicians, not thoughtful), but that's because most don't get out much (literally or intelectually).

**********************************

Totes agree. We are systematically replacing the rule of law with the rule of men. For example, a state insurance commissioner decides a policy is adequate, but an HHS bureaucrat decides it is not. In neither case can an insurance company or underwriter reliably predict in advance how either will rule, nor what will be upheld in the courts. (Not to mention, what business is it of government at any level to decide what insurance policies can and can't be sold, but don't let me get all Ayn Rand.)


Replacing the rule of law with the rule of  men ends in corruption and power being the organizing principles. It is the end of civilization. It's been going on for a long time, and SCOAMF is just accelerating the trend. But it is not an inevitable trend.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:49 AM (HubSo)

189 It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts reversed his legal opinion on Obamacare, that it was unconstitutional, to offer a political opinion, that it was a tax and thus constitutional, in order to save the law. And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship. But when has a Dem-appointed CJ ever done this? Never that I can recall. Our side always caves, our side always loses.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 15, 2013 07:49 AM (7ObY1)

190 Delauro up now..ravishing beauty.

Posted by: CSPAN at November 15, 2013 07:50 AM (ugAvG)

191 the Internal Revenue Service can pick and choose who it audits, but it cannot pick and choose who has to obey the law Ha Ha funny man/woman

Posted by: The Tea Party at November 15, 2013 07:50 AM (0FSuD)

192 188 Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 11:49 AM (HubSo)

Old boy the Rubicon...you're soaking in it...

//Cicero

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 07:50 AM (9jfyN)

193 [iFLASHBACK: Obama 2007: 'I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution'...

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 11:49 AM (Hx5uv) [/i]

 

 

So many lies packed into one tiny sentence...

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:50 AM (4df7R)

194 OT and spiffy. How to use a block of concrete to abrade a can lid so you can eat the contents of the can when SHTF. http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2013/11/05/open-can-without-can-opener Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 15, 2013 11:34 AM (0fdrC) love the name yeah, pretty cool stuff thanks

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 15, 2013 07:50 AM (IXrOn)

195 Does she now have creds here? If so, why?

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 15, 2013 11:47 AM (tOkJB)


Blind squirrel + nut etc.

Posted by: tangonine at November 15, 2013 07:50 AM (x3YFz)

196 But if you want to start fixing things, the sooner this bitch of a "law" is overturned, the better.

The godfather said never let a crisis go to waste.  In this case I agree. 

Fix it now and you waste the potential of the 2014 election cycle by letting the Dems off the hook too soon. 

Repeal it now and you let them create a "we were stabbed in the back" mythology about how the law only needed "a few tweaks" and the evil Republicans robbed the American people of something awesome.


Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at November 15, 2013 07:51 AM (Xlbr8)

197

Wow - "every law has winners and losers"?  WTF?  So then this whole constitutional framework thinggy, rule of law, is just a domesticated gang fight with people wrestling over flat-screen TVs?

 

No, most laws should not have "winners" and "losers".  And of what significance is the constitution - at all - if the potential to "lose" is not so narrowly restricted that it's a "loss" in very narrow academic sense?  Individuals are the basis of our system, and protection from guvamint (i.e., their fellow citizens using the coercive power of the state) the whole animating and unique feature.  Or not.  I guess.

 

Oh, and back to Roberts.  His little comment about it not being SCOTUS' job to protect the electorate from its decisions - quick someone find a more ridiculous, revealing, and disqualifying comment from a "justice", ever.  You can even use the deluded rantings of Bryer or Kennedy - that's how ridiculous Roberts is.

 

Posted by: non-purist at November 15, 2013 07:51 AM (afQnV)

198 184 Is anybody else expecting a lively Thanksgiving family get-together this month? I'm done arguing with them. My mouth stays zipped unless any of them start bitching about the O-Care disasters. Then I'm simply going to ask them why they are so rayciss. When they look at me with shocked anger, I'll just say, "That's what your side has been screaming at us for the last 5 years, so it must be true."

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 15, 2013 07:52 AM (7ObY1)

199 The Constitution is not a suicide pact....... Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 11:45 AM (p9JxP) And that 'excuse' has been used to justify breaking the clear meaning of Rights... Now, the reason the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact? Is that it can be amended.... it can be changed... They use this fictional Suicide idea as a means to IGNORE the clear intent of the Framers... I would rate that statement as the most blatant attack on the idea of Natural Rights, the Court ever uttered...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 15, 2013 07:52 AM (lZBBB)

200

the Internal Revenue Service can pick and choose who it audits, but it cannot pick and choose who has to obey the law


Ha Ha funny man/woman

 

Posted by: The Tea Party at November 15, 2013 11:50 AM (0FSuD)

 

 

Ah, but you see, they were making sure   Tea Party-affiliated groups were obeying the law to the very letter; sometimes even BEYOND the letter.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:52 AM (4df7R)

201 No lively holiday get togethers for us. We're going hiking and rock climbing.

Posted by: NCKate at November 15, 2013 07:52 AM (w7CQT)

202 The Court should have never accepted the case and in essence that would have been sending it back to Congress. Posted by: polynikes

Yeah, but the Supremes had their hands tied because several Circuits issued conflicting ObamaCare rulings.  Thanks, Tattoo, for reminding me about the Commerce Clause refusal.

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 07:53 AM (HjPtV)

203 Is anybody else expecting a lively Thanksgiving family get-together this month?

I got a waiver.  It's just me and a waiter TBD.

Dreading Christmas, though.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 15, 2013 07:53 AM (ZKzrr)

204

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 15, 2013 11:47 AM (tOkJB)

 

It goes the other way more often.   Someone who has written 99% of material praised by the horde can  be bashed by the same horde when they write that 1%.     Most recent was Thomas Sowell though he almost got away bash  free.  Not quite.   It was polite bashing. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 07:53 AM (m2CN7)

205 I think we have already blown through the Bananna Republic zone and are headed into Chavez-ville
---

Thank goodness. I could use a plasma screen TV.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 07:53 AM (Hx5uv)

206 Yesterday, a commenter mentioned that Roberts was blackmailed to change his opinion, because he adopted two kids from Ireland in a rather sketchy manner. Google it, and you'll see that it is a pretty legit theory that completely lines up with the Chicago thug politics of the Obama administration.

Posted by: Stirner at November 15, 2013 07:53 AM (l1p2K)

207 189 BlueStateRebel at November 15, 2013 11:49 AM (7ObY1)

But when has a Dem-appointed CJ ever done this? Never that I can recall.


*****************

There hasn't been a Dem-appointed CJ since 1953. Yep, 60 years ago Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 15, 2013 07:54 AM (HubSo)

208 Krebs v Carnot, #180 - you quote this idiot comment: "If the Republican states had stepped up and done their duty [Â…], the process would be a lot smoother." I saw that somewhere else. The obvious rebuttal is, So how's this working out in the states that cooperated fully with the President's plan?

Posted by: JPS at November 15, 2013 07:54 AM (PukRa)

209 Thank goodness. I could use a plasma screen TV.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 11:53 AM (Hx5uv)

 

Too bad you won't be able to afford the electricity needed to use it,  nor the   satellite or cable package necessary to make it worthwhile.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 15, 2013 07:54 AM (4df7R)

210 But when has a Dem-appointed CJ ever done this? Never that I can recall.

Our side always caves, our side always loses.
 Posted by: BlueStateRebel

There's something about the legal profession in general that sort of breeds liberal minds.

And most of the intellectual conservative movement has been pushing a "non-activist" court, which is completely opposite of the liberal side which is proudly activist.

So our side does its job and their side just looks at it as another lever of power.

Personally, I'd like a conservative, activist court unless the other side wants a truce.

Posted by: McAdams at November 15, 2013 07:55 AM (DroxO)

211 171 Is anybody else expecting a lively Thanksgiving family get-together this month
**********************************************************

Not me.  For once it's going to be peaceful.  My flaming lib sister is not invited.

Posted by: creeper at November 15, 2013 07:55 AM (eR310)

212 Too bad you won't be able to afford the electricity needed to use it, nor the satellite or cable package necessary to make it worthwhile. However, perched upon two milk crates, it will make for a stunning post-modern coffee table. Or maybe post-apocalyptic. I keep getting them confused...

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/i][/u][/s] at November 15, 2013 07:56 AM (sbV1u)

213 Yeah, but the Supremes had their hands tied because several Circuits issued conflicting ObamaCare rulings. Thanks, Tattoo, for reminding me about the Commerce Clause refusal.

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 11:53 AM (HjPtV)

 

Yes but I thought that gave the Supreme  the  opportunity to issue a  strong opinion that  the issues needed to be resolved through  legislation. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 07:56 AM (m2CN7)

214 Stirner, #206: "Google it, and you'll see that it is a pretty legit theory that completely lines up with the Chicago thug politics of the Obama administration." It does, but I don't need it. I think Roberts was convinced, or convinced himself, or both, that the right thing to do, and the small-c conservative position, was along the lines of Oliver Wendell Holmes: If the people vote to go to hell, it is my job to help them on their way. Personally I think Roberts was wrong. That if this abomination is constitutional, the term no longer has meaning. But I'm closer to being convinced that, as some argued earlier, he basically threw this back on Congress and the President and said, You want this, it's your problem now.

Posted by: JPS at November 15, 2013 07:57 AM (PukRa)

215 Ironically, it's B positive. Hard to do that lately.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 07:57 AM (zDsvJ)

216 190 Delauro up now..ravishing beauty. Posted by: CSPAN at November 15, 2013 11:50 AM (ugAvG) *Does an Elvis on the television*

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 15, 2013 07:58 AM (oFCZn)

217 99 I learned my lesson about saving things in my cart for later because if you aren't paying attention and you click the checkout button while you are in the midst of dog and kid chaos you end up getting more than you expected in that smiley face Amazon box on your doorstep... I had that happen to me. One quick call to Amazon and it was all taken care of. You print up a return slip and send it back. Amazon even pays the shipping, even if it was your own fault. No questions asked. The customer service rep spoke perfect English and was as helpful as can be. One thing about Amazon, their customer service is outstanding, in my experience.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 15, 2013 07:58 AM (7ObY1)

218 How to use a block of concrete to abrade a can lid so you can eat the contents of the can when SHTF. >>


Just keep a P38 on your key chain and you wont have to work so hard.

http://tinyurl.com/lyk57gu

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 15, 2013 07:59 AM (tf9Ne)

219 several Circuits issued conflicting ObamaCare rulings

That's never stopped them in the past.  There have been cases where the govt won/lost in different district courts and didn't appeal the losses to SCOTUS fearing total overturn.

Yes, we have situations where Federal "law" differs from district to district and the situation has persisted for decades.  Its ridiculous, but it happens.

One notable one had to do with a small class 3 weapons manufacturer somewhere in the midwest who beat the Reagan era ban on manufacture of new civilian automatic weapons that was part of GOPA86.

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at November 15, 2013 08:00 AM (Xlbr8)

220 Thank goodness. I could use a plasma screen TV. Posted by: WalrusRex at November 15, 2013 11:53 AM (Hx5uv) Too bad you won't be able to afford the electricity needed to use it, nor the satellite or cable package necessary to make it worthwhile. GenSet & XBox FTW!

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 08:01 AM (p9JxP)

221 Rule of law? We don't need no rule of law http://tinyurl.com/pp4fgfw

Posted by: Venezuela at November 15, 2013 08:01 AM (0FSuD)

222 Our Tdays are great. I make the turkey dinner the day before, then the actual day is spent in our jimjams eating leftovers and watching football. Awesomesauce!

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 08:03 AM (zDsvJ)

223 How to use a block of concrete to abrade a can lid so you can eat the contents of the can when SHTF. >> Just keep a P38 on your key chain and you wont have to work so hard. And at some Army/Navy surplus store you can get 10 for $5.00. Stash 'em everywhere. I have one at my desk & one in my briefcase at the moment.

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 08:03 AM (p9JxP)

224 Nood. Grab willow & Anna!

Posted by: rickb223 at November 15, 2013 08:05 AM (p9JxP)

225 @223 Most every swiss army knife of any utility beyond office worker tools includes a can opener as well. They work much better than the P38s because of the increased leverage, in addition to having all the other tools.

Posted by: flounder at November 15, 2013 08:05 AM (Kkt/i)

226 222 Our Tdays are great. I make the turkey dinner the day before, then the actual day is spent in our jimjams eating leftovers and watching football. When I was a kid, we either went hunting in the morning and had afternoon T day, OR we went to THE football game. VPI vs VMI always on T day. USC vs Clemson always on T day, then came home and ate T dinner or the parents looked at it after a nap.

Posted by: Nip Sip at November 15, 2013 08:06 AM (0FSuD)

227

221 Rule of law? We don't need no rule of law

 

This answers the question from yesterday concerning which country / constitution that Obama 'taught'

Posted by: PMRich at November 15, 2013 08:08 AM (x/BtJ)

228 17

That ship has sailed. No "do-over" by John Taney Roberts will ever repair his odious reputation. That decision was his permanent legacy.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 15, 2013 11:12 AM (8ZskC)

Yep, that POS Roberts is as much to blame for the ObamaCare fiasco as Obama himself. All Roberts had to do was apply the Constitution when making his decision, like the four conservative justices did. Instead, the country and its citizens will suffer significant economic and financial damage and more citizens will have a diminished quality of life and/or a shorter life, including several of my own relatives who are already experiencing significant problems with their insurance due to ObamaCare. Thanks, Roberts. May you and Obama spend your final days suffering from a severe case of ass cancer.

Posted by: Slappy at November 15, 2013 08:08 AM (g0F0Y)

229 When I typed "Circuits", I was referring to US Circuit Courts of Appeals, not federal district courts. I thought Circuits was shorthand, sorry for the confusion.

Yes but I thought that gave the Supreme the opportunity to issue a strong opinionthat the issues needed to be resolved through legislation. Posted by: polynikes

Yes but ... like Ace mention above, the Supremes are political people, and 2012 was a presidential election year, so they didn't go bold in the middle of a big campaign.

Posted by: mrp at November 15, 2013 08:10 AM (HjPtV)

230 SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare was a tax. If it is a tax, how does POTUS decide to NOT collect a tax, and for how long can he NOT collect the tax? Can he decide that none of us need to pay income tax for a year?

Posted by: Scott at November 15, 2013 08:11 AM (LiDEA)

231 @223 Most every swiss army knife of any utility beyond office worker tools includes a can opener as well. They work much better than the P38s because of the increased leverage, in addition to having all the other tools.

Posted by: flounder at November 15, 2013 12:05 PM (Kkt/i)

 

actually its very easy to open a can with any blade knife.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 08:14 AM (m2CN7)

232 108 OT and spiffy.

How to use a block of concrete to abrade a can lid so you can eat the contents of the can when SHTF.

http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2013/11/05/open-can-without-can-opener

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 15, 2013 11:34 AM (0fdrC)


That's not new.  That's 'prison 101'.  Need a coffee mug?  Rub the top of a soda can on the concrete 'til the top seal is worn away.  Remove top....fill with instant coffee.  Enjoy your bleak existence.

Posted by: Passerby at November 15, 2013 08:14 AM (sOlwy)

233 That's not new. That's 'prison 101'. Need a coffee mug? Rub the top of a soda can on the concrete 'til the top seal is worn away. Remove top....fill with instant coffee. Enjoy your bleak existence.

Posted by: Passerby at November 15, 2013 12:14 PM (sOlwy)

 

I filled mine with  pruno. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 08:16 AM (m2CN7)

234 Yes but I thought that gave the Supreme the opportunity to issue a strong opinionthat the issues needed to be resolved through legislation. Posted by: polynikes at November 15, 2013 11:56 AM (m2CN7) Sure, he punted it back to the legislature, and we've had nothing but gridlock... so far. Now the law is kicking in, it's alive but defanged, and the conservative base sat out 2012 but will show up in 2014 and take the senate. He ultimately put the onus on the electorate.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 08:17 AM (Y92Nd)

235 I think what we have learned from this is that the Republicans are going to step in and become complicit in this thing just as we feared they would.  Instead of holding firm for full repeal they will now begin to tinker with it and try to make it bearable rather than letting it fall of its own weight and we will be stuck with it forever while the Dems and Reps each point at the other as the reason why there is so much pain.

All is proceeding as was foreseen.

BTW, if you want the idiot-traitor Roberts to be more reasonable (if he ever gets another bite at the apple) you need to trash him at every opportunity.  He has shown that he responds to that sort of pressure so he needs to get it good and hard.  But you will need to give him a better excuse than one group having a different tax rate than another.  Taxes are nothing if not a means to punish ones enemies and reward ones friend.  Grandfathering is as good a fig leaf as any other for having different rates.  We already tax things differently for lots of social engineering reasons.  That isn't going to cut it.

Posted by: Thatch at November 15, 2013 08:18 AM (qYvEa)

236

The Supreme Court is and ought to be out of this thing.

 

We hate it when liberals use judicial endruns to undermine popular sentiment on an issue.  Why should we be proposing the same thing. 

 

This law is MASSIVELY unpopular.  If we can't take advantage of that by using the tools the Constitution gave us to get it repealed, namely elections and legislation, then shame on us.

 

It's also massively counterproductive for opponents of the law to keep blaming John Roberts for it.  Good grief.  How about going after the assholes who wrote the damn thing first??  Nancy Pelosi should be getting HOUNDED at every turn right now.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2013 08:23 AM (vE1mx)

237 Fuck Roberts, his legacy and his court. At least he gave Republicans a cudgel with which to beat the everloving shit out of the donks like the low rent whores they are. Use what you got. Leave McConnell alone, take out traitors like Graham and Alexander in safe red states where any Pub can win. Take the Senate, start impeachment proceedings and repeal this POS in 2016 with a Republican president and a ruling majority.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 08:24 AM (Y92Nd)

238 Mrs. Manolo got very, very upset with the Chief Justice when he voted to establish Obamacare as constitutional. I said at the time --and I still do-- that it was absolutely brilliant; don't fret it; the whole thing's going to unravel on its own. Rather than spiking it and giving the Democrats a second bite at getting a law through that would withstand the scrutiny of the Supremes, the Chief Justice sided with the Solicitor General and firmly established it as a tax. It was a brilliant long-game move by him. Politics is not about the short game. It's the long game. We're still feeling the impact of Prohibition every single day because it was an incredible series of short-term political actions based upon a manufactured wave of public sentiment. The same for Obamacare. The essence of conservatism is slow, methodical, well-thought out political change that compels through collective agreement and assent. The essence of liberalism is radical, poorly thought change through the political process so as to compel through force. Now we're seeing exactly what the Chief Justice's intent was: Let them have it so it can be filleted through innumerable challenges from innumerable angels. Obamacare is highly vulnerable to the proverbial "death by a thousand paper cuts." ...and the knives are being drawn from their scabbards!

Posted by: Manolo at November 15, 2013 08:24 AM (myV+q)

239 206 Yesterday, a commenter mentioned that Roberts was blackmailed to change his opinion, because he adopted two kids from Ireland in a rather sketchy manner.

Google it, and you'll see that it is a pretty legit theory that completely lines up with the Chicago thug politics of the Obama administration.

Posted by: Stirner at November 15, 2013 11:53 AM (l1p2K)

 

The greatest lawyer of his generation broke laws to adopt his kids.

 

Yeah, that's totally plausible.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2013 08:26 AM (vE1mx)

240 143 130 Y-not on the phone at November 15, 2013 11:39 AM (zDsvJ) In time you may. Like the cylons I have a plan. --------------- Svenn Did you ever figure out how we will be able to contact each other if the innertubes are shut down??? Each day seems to make it likely that we will need your plan for our compound.

Posted by: Chilling the most at November 15, 2013 08:28 AM (gxtMZ)

241 240 Chilling the most at November 15, 2013 12:28 PM (gxtMZ)

I figure we need some Ham Radio Morons or PRC-025s or 77s and "area leaders" at Rally Points if it ever comes to that.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 15, 2013 08:32 AM (9jfyN)

242 236

It's also massively counterproductive for opponents of the law to keep blaming John Roberts for it. Good grief. How about going after the assholes who wrote the damn thing first?? Nancy Pelosi should be getting HOUNDED at every turn right now.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2013 12:23 PM (vE1mx)

Don't you think BOTH those who wrote/passed ObamaCare AND Roberts deserve to be criticized? Personally, I don't know anybody who is blaming Roberts but not also blaming Obama and the Democrats for pushing and passing ObamaCare. Roberts decision is notably bad because it was a ruling that set a precedent for giving the government unbridled power over its citizens and thus changed the relationship between the government and its citizens ... and not in a good way. Plus, reversing the law legislatively is a feasible remedy at some point in the future (though it will be difficult to accomplish this). However, a SCOTUS decision that establishes a precedent is much more difficult to rectify, especially if Democrat appointees to the SCOTUS ever outnumber Republican appointees at some point in the near future, which may happen very soon.

Posted by: Slappy at November 15, 2013 08:33 AM (g0F0Y)

243 Posted by: Stirner at November 15, 2013 11:53 AM (l1p2K) Roberts' marriage would not have withstood the prog-directed media hit. They demonstrated with Sarah Palin how they can turn your life upside down. They would have outed Roberts from the closet and attacked his wife and children.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 08:38 AM (Y92Nd)

244 It's also massively counterproductive for opponents of the law to keep blaming John Roberts for it. Good grief. How about going after the assholes who wrote the damn thing first?? Nancy Pelosi should be getting HOUNDED at every turn right now. Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2013 12:23 PM (vE1mx) Nancy Pelosi is one of the least popular political figures in the country, safe in SF but stripped of her gavel, which additionally protects her in a way. The time to debate the law has passed for now. Rather go after the Dems in vulnerable districts who voted for it.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 15, 2013 08:42 AM (Y92Nd)

245 It's true, I was blackmailed.

Posted by: John Roberts at November 15, 2013 08:50 AM (/AHDz)

246 Perhaps during a revisit of ObamaCare to the SCOTUS, the justices might want to consider the 9th Amendment during their deliberations.

9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Posted by: Felix Frankfurter at November 15, 2013 08:52 AM (e8kgV)

247 An argument based on the constitutionality of the enforcement of the tax isn't ripe until *after* the tax starts being levied. So, we're talking April 15, 2015 (when 2014 taxes are due) at the earliest.

And you have to get at least one person who actually paid/owes the tax to be the plaintiff (which granted would not be that difficult but that person has to agree to serve as the plaintiff and given the way the MSM is sure to "vet" that person that's going to take someone with some guts to allow his/her entire life to become a media frenzy).

Posted by: Dancing Queen at November 15, 2013 08:58 AM (FDGeg)

248 "If we get rid of Obama, we get Biden. If we get rid of Biden, we get Boner. If we get rid of Boner, we get John Fucking Kerry." No, we'd get Harry Reid, which is even worse. I think SecState is either #5 or #6 on the list. Personally, I'd be OK with John B. as President -- better than Mitch McConnell.

Posted by: WildWillyC at November 15, 2013 09:04 AM (Jfxjt)

249 "And he did this for political considerations, to preserve the public's good-will towards the Court and maintain its image of nonpartisanship." _________________________ It was more like Roberts did it to preserve the liberal media's good-will towards the Court. It wasn't the public who was writing those editorials in the NY Times about how the Court would lose its legitimacy if it didn't uphold our "historic first black president's signature legislation" -- it was the Times. It was the Times that Roberts sought to placate, not the public. I doubt that, even now, Roberts is deeply ashamed of what he did. But he should be.

Posted by: Trivial Pursuer at November 15, 2013 10:17 AM (/sohm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
236kb generated in CPU 0.2933, elapsed 0.4228 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3343 seconds, 377 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 157770
  • Files: 1763
  • Bytes: 4.8G
  • CPU Time: 152:44
  • Queries: 4546374

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5930392

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0