Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Steering the discussion back on topic, why does the right think the OPINION of 1/9 of the SCOTUS is controlling? I keep hearing "the SCOTUS ruled it was a tax", the SCOTUS did no such thing. One justice doesn't speak for the whole court. Not sure did ANY justice concur with any part of Roberts' OPINION?
Could you show us the other opinions of the other judges? Surely you people demand more than one Majority Opinion on things this important. I don't think you are able to understand what I keep saying.
If it were presented as an argument, according to the Chief Justice, the case would have been thrown out the Supreme Court.
I keep hearing and reading that Kagan's replacement argued before the Court that it was a tax, although that was against the promise made by the President not to raise taxes. Did he really argue like that or not? Well, he was grasping at straws and must have thought it would work.
You don't understand how lawyers argue cases. Their objective is to have the courts rule in a particular way and it doesn't matter the rationale they use to arrive at that end.
Therefore, in the same brief, a lawyer will argue contradictory scenarios that lead to the same place. Thus, the court can agree that we are right because X is true or the court can agree that we are right because -X is true.
That ordinary legal procedure.
In this matter, it doesn't matter how the court declared the ACA constitutional. They did. It's settled law now and I won't hold my breathe for Congress to repeal it as some people here, whose heads aren't tethered to reality, think is going to happen.
I agree with you on how lawyers argue the case. I also agree that it doesnt matter what most cases are decided on.
However, in this case it certainly does matter. It matters because of the quirk in Senate rules that requires 60 senators vote to end debate on most matters. Tax law, is one of the few exclusions to that rule.
If the court calls this commerse, then the 60 vote rule is in play.
If the court calls this a tax, then the 60 vote rule is out. Republicans then only have to muster 50 votes and have the Whitehouse. (because the VP would cast the tiebreaker).
So in this case it does certainly matter.
Now, as to yoiur not holding your breath. Im with you. At the end of the day conservatives like me are going to have to rely on a fikle Senate to stand up and do something that just might be terribly unpopular.
You can NEVER count on senators to do the unpopular. (Unless you are a liberal and you are counting on liberals to move America towards universal healthcare).
I don't care about oral arguments. I do care about arguments presented to uphold the law, and so should you.
You are weakening in your reasoning so maybe you best retire to let things cool down. The arguments you say were used to uphold constitutionality of the law were the oral arguments presented by the government's head lawyer arguing to the Court. You just won't let that through your liberal screen, will you?
Could you show us the other opinions of the other judges? Surely you people demand more than one Majority Opinion on things this important. I don't think you are able to understand what I keep saying.
Duh,, it passed for the deciding vote said it is a tax.. it won on the argument of OBAMA'S LAWYERS who said it was a tax.. that was the legal argument! So it was passed as a tax.. if it was not accessed as a tax it would never have passed.
That was the majority opinion, written by Roberts.
If it was not a "tax", it would have been orverturned. Roberts stated this clearly. There you have it-
1. either it is a "tax" and is legal
2. or it is a penalty and is therefore not legal
You can't have it both ways. This is a great albatross for the dems to bear during the 2012 elections. Roberts made a brilliant political move which saddles the dems with this for the 2012 elections and essentially insures it will be overturned through the legislative process.
Larget tax increase in US history OWNED by Obama and the dems.
I don't think this tax increase will be the largest once Obama loses in the election and then allows the Bush-Obama tax cuts to expire. Think how much that one will cost all of us, not just some of us.
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm upset about the ruling... no qualms about it. That doesn't change the fact that Kagan should have recused herself though.
If you feel that Kagan should have recused herself, then the same should have applied to Justice uncle thomas.
It's a convoluted ruling, it's clearly not a tax, but if it's a penalty, via the commerce clause, then it is unconstitutional.
Its not. But I understand that simple things can be complex to many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I keep hearing and reading that Kagan's replacement argued before the Court that it was a tax, although that was against the promise made by the President not to raise taxes. Did he really argue like that or not? Well, he was grasping at straws and must have thought it would work.
Roy, this thread isn't about argument made or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
You are weakening in your reasoning so maybe you best retire to let things cool down. The arguments you say were used to uphold constitutionality of the law were the oral arguments presented by the government's head lawyer arguing to the Court. You just won't let that through your liberal screen, will you?
You wish that I would let the right wingers get away. You sure wish that nobody keeps putting y'all in place. And logic is more than a lip service, something y'all dwell in. Heck, get a clue of the subject of this thread, THEN come back and challenge others on "logic". Weakening my argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Who would have been pitching the sour grapes if Roberts had ruled with his heart as well as his mind? Why, yes, I believe it may well have been you.
You wish. Given the partisan nature of the Supreme Court, I saw possibilities both ways as these political decisions have increasingly become defined on one vote. A symptom of sourgrapeitis is that people suffering with it are dead set one way and run around with diarrhea when it goes the other way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
