Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act

breamfisherbreamfisher Senior MemberPosts: 13,886 Senior Member
Chief Justice John Roberts sides with the more liberal members of the court in a 5-4 ruling, declaring the act a tax. Even though it's a tax that mandates insurance coverage, so the money goes to private industry, not directly to the government...

Thought y'all would like to know.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/breakingnews/2012/06/highly-awaited-health-care-overhaul-verdict-awaited-at-10-am.html
I'm just here for snark.
«1

Replies

  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    I imagine Bush regrets appointing Roberts to SCOTUS, thinking he was a Conservative. Seems he is a RINO in disguise.
    Now electing Romney is even more important, since the next President will likely appoint 1,2,or 3 new Justices during the next term.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Tell me again why SCOTUS appointees are a reason to vote for a republican president? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    I imagine Bush regrets appointing Roberts to SCOTUS, thinking he was a Conservative. Seems he is a RINO in disguise.
    Now electing Romney is even more important, since the next President will likely appoint 1,2,or 3 new Justices during the next term.

    What makes you think Bush was a conservative?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Two in a row for Roberts...I'm beginning to think someone has pictures.
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,068 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    So we don't end up with imbeciles that think the Constitutions is just a nice old piece of paper like the ones that Obama has apointed. What part of that is tough to "see"

    Seems like that is what we have now from Republican appointees.

    Anyone want to place bets on Romney saying he will destroy the law when he gets in office?
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Tell me again why SCOTUS appointees are a reason to vote for a republican president? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it.

    So you would prefer Obama is re-elected and appoints more Justices like Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Do you really think Romney would appoint the same type?
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    Seems like that is what we have now from Republican appointees.

    Anyone want to place bets on Romney saying he will destroy the law when he gets in office?

    He's been saying it for a year. If it is to get done, it will be because a heavily conservative Republican majority is swept into office with him.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    To be honest, I have completely lost all faith in our government. They can't look x steps ahead when their heads are currently where they are. I say we go back to early American times, and do away with all salaries for politicians.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • conchokidconchokid Administrator Posts: 512 Senior Member
    Romney is already wisely pointing out that the decision states that the Obamacare mandate is a tax. And a very costly tax that increases the deficit and the national debt. Maybe Roberts knew what he was doing.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    So we don't end up with imbeciles that think the Constitutions is just a nice old piece of paper like the ones that Obama has apointed. What part of that is tough to "see"


    Depending on what decision you want to discuss, none of them (except maybe Thomas) thinks the Constitution is anything more than a piece of paper.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    So you would prefer Obama is re-elected and appoints more Justices like Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Do you really think Romney would appoint the same type?

    Please explain how they are any different than Alito?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • airheadairhead Member Posts: 424 Member
    does this mean I can deduct the cost of my insurance now as "other taxes" paid?
    This post has been made with 100% recycled electrons.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I did what little reading on Obamacare I cared about not long after the law was passed. It's without question a bad law that has the objective of federalizing much of our health care, and at iimmense cost to taxpayers.

    Whether however the law is constitutional I never really figured out. Bad law, yes. Constitutional? Maybe.

    Today SCOTUS upheld most of it. The Demos will push this in a celebration, the Republicans will remind us it's a tax that Obama swore he'd never pass. As if anything Obama promised makes any difference. The mainstream press will ignore Obama's no-tax promise and elevate him to sainthood (oh, wait, they've already done that).

    Critical to this, as was said above, is that we MUST get Obama out before he can appoint 2 more Justices. Romney isn't a deep conservative but at LEAST he's more conservative than Obama.

    This SCOTUS decision will obviously boost the Obama polls and help him for November. That's a hard pill to swallow but we have to realize that's what happened when tons of Republicans stayed home in 2008 and gave Obama the big majorities in both houses so he could pass these junk laws.

    Not voting has consequenses. Those who didn't care much for McCain (I was among them) could have AT LEAST voted for conservative congress or senate. But they were grumpy and stayed home. Ya get what ya pay for (or, what ya don't vote against).

    This will be a tight election, gang. And the choice is 1) Obama, 2) not-Obama
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    Sam, for once I totally, 100% agree with every word you just said.

    Well put!
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • lightkeeperlightkeeper Member Posts: 168 Member
    Hopefully this decision on a horrendus law will energize conservative voters to oust Obama in Nov..
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    conchokid wrote: »
    Maybe Roberts knew what he was doing.
    I am thinking that there is a touch of brilliance in what he did. He did not allow it to go through on the commerce clause nor did he let it through on the concept of general welfare. It got defined as a tax. It is super easy to gut a tax compared to the other two arguments.

    This paves the way for real reform, keeps the conservative base angry (and active), and takes wind out of the sails of liberals that argue the court is a right-wing activist court. I think everyone should read between the lines here and look at the possibilities. I will read Roberts opinion when I get a chance, but I actually like what I am seeing so far. I am betting that he carefully laid out a pathway if one is willing to look.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I am thinking that there is a touch of brilliance in what he did. He did not allow it to go through on the commerce clause nor did he let it through on the concept of general welfare. It got defined as a tax. It is super easy to gut a tax compared to the other two arguments.

    This paves the way for real reform, keeps the conservative base angry (and active), and takes wind out of the sails of liberals that argue the court is a right-wing activist court. I think everyone should read between the lines here and look at the possibilities. I will read Roberts opinion when I get a chance, but I actually like what I am seeing so far. I am betting that he carefully laid out a pathway if one is willing to look.

    I get it, that the Constitution allows the Congress to tax what it wants, in the amount that it wants, and that the check on that is the citizen's right to hire and fire the Congress, if it does not do that job to their liking. In this sense, I can understand why Roberts thought it was a good excuse to uphold the law.

    However, I also think the court had an extremely good case for not upholding it, if they had wanted, because the lawmakers who rammed this through swore up and down that it was not a tax, settling instead for it being called a mandate. They even argued it this way before the court, and Roberts apparently ignored that completely. They were given every opportunity to call it a tax, and ran backwards from it at every opportunity. They bet the whole ball of wax on it being a mandate, for strictly political reasons. I watched Obama browbeat Stephanopolis and others who tried to suggest that, of course, it was a tax.

    The bottom line is that we have one election to rein in the federal government on this issue. If this bill stands and goes into effect, this country will be changed forever.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Government is supposed to work in small incremental steps. If they were smart, they would stop tying insurance to employment by eliminating the tax break for employers and pass it along to the consumers themselves.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    However, I also think the court had an extremely good case for not upholding it, if they had wanted, because the lawmakers who rammed this through swore up and down that it was not a tax, settling instead for it being called a mandate. They even argued it this way before the court, and Roberts apparently ignored that completely.

    My understanding is that obama's solicitor general who argued for this before the supreme court used the argument that this WAS A TAX, and therefore constitutional. It should be interesting to see what spin obama and his fellow democrats put on this regarding the tax issue. Now, Romney and the republicans can accurately claim that obama has introduced a new tax, and that it is not just targeted at the rich.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Thanks Breamfisher, I have said this before I am going to say it again, and again, again etc. "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"
    I imagine Bush regrets appointing Roberts to SCOTUS, thinking he was a Conservative. Seems he is a RINO in disguise.
    Now electing Romney is even more important, since the next President will likely appoint 1,2,or 3 new Justices during the next term.

    Let's hope Romney chooses wisely, very wisely!!!!!
    Two in a row for Roberts...I'm beginning to think someone has pictures.

    Either that or a video, that hasn't made it on the UTube yet.
    Seems like that is what we have now from Republican appointees.

    Anyone want to place bets on Romney saying he will destroy the law when he gets in office?

    He said he would today on the news, He said that yesterday too.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    To be honest, I have completely lost all faith in our government. They can't look x steps ahead when their heads are currently where they are. I say we go back to early American times, and do away with all salaries for politicians.

    I have to agree with ya here SirGeorgeKillian. Lost all faith. "One reason why God created glass belly buttons,is so when people get their head up they butt , they can see where they are going."
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    My understanding is that obama's solicitor general who argued for this before the supreme court used the argument that this WAS A TAX, and therefore constitutional.

    You may be right - the part of it that I actually heard was when he was arguing that the commerce clause in the Constitution did allow this type of mandate. Since the politicians kept denying that it was a tax, I thought he was making the same point. But I only heard excerpts, and that's what I took from it at the time. I may be wrong.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,886 Senior Member
    From what I recall, originally the argument was that it was justified under the commerce clause, primarily for political reasons: Congress didn't want to add another tax during a time of negative economic activity.
    It might have been later stated to be a tax because it would be "easier" to justify.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    The biggest issue though seems to be how do you cover old people and people with pre-existing conditions without the large pools provided by employer programs? Being young and healthy I'd obviously benefit from such a system, but anyone who's unfortunate enough to have a chronic condition isn't so lucky. There need to be some kind of protections in place for people who are "uneconomic" for insurers to cover.

    I am one of those "older people" with chronic, pre-existing conditions. I pay about $550 a month to insure the entire family. The catch is that I don't run around without insurance until I need something done and I am covered as long as I maintain coverage. In my state, Blue Cross is insurer of last resort and they are required by law to take everyone. I have Blue Cross. There is no problem in my state. Our system works fine after the initial 180 day pre-existing wait period after being uninsured up. From here on out, as long as I maintain insurance (I can even switch insurers) the pre-existing part is a non issue.

    Obamacare passed and my insurance went from $475 a month to the $550 today. It wasn't broke then and we were just fine without the Feds coming in. In my state, that is essentially a straw man argument. The poor have always had Medicaid, and in my county, the working poor (too poor to afford regular insurance but too rich to qualify for Medicaid) can get the Genesee Health Plan for $30 a month which is a pretty good plan.

    Romney is right that local and state solutions are needed. Health insurance works pretty well around here and we really didn't need the help.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    Splane something to me! Didn't this bill originate in the Senate?
    Constitutionally, I thought all tax legislation must begin in the House!
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,137 Senior Member
    Personally, I have no problem with Justice Roberts...his record on the 2A makes him OK in my book....also according to Justice Roberts in his majority opinion " It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices (Majority Opinion, p. 12)." IMHO this could not be truer..."the "people" elected Obama, and now they get to deal with the consequences of their choice.

    In reality, By defining this as a TAX....I think SCOTUS took ObamaCare, jammed it up the Presidents fourth point of contact and broke it off.... kind of a payback for the public admonishment Obama gave them a couple of years ago...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,912 Senior Member
    conchokid wrote: »
    Romney is already wisely pointing out that the decision states that the Obamacare mandate is a tax. And a very costly tax that increases the deficit and the national debt. Maybe Roberts knew what he was doing.
    Below is a link to an article by Erick Ericksen of RedState.com. Although I am quite pissed off at the decision of the court today, according to Ericksen there might be a sliver lining to all this. I sure hope so.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • rbsivleyrbsivley Senior Member Posts: 1,259 Senior Member
    If it's considered a tax don't we get to vote on it?
    Randy

    Rank does not concur privileges. It imposes responsibility. Author unknow
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement