Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Yup. Read it all.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 29th, 2012 at 10:06 am
The limit on the Commerce Clause is certainly a win, but the Supreme Court has essentially removed all limits on the power to tax.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Roberts is a moron of the first order. He has now enshrined forever the idea that the federal government can tax you for not doing anything. Taxes no longer apply only to economic activity; merely having a pulse now incurs debt to the government.
So they can’t fine you for not buying a GM car; they can sure as hell tax you.
This was a loss, and a big one.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:16 am
This article is delusional. The liberals won because we were betrayed. Again. Establishment Republicans can spin this all they want to elect Romney or defend Bush’s choices or whatever but the bottom line is that freedom and constitutional order lost. We are now stuck with the soul destroying, economic deadweight of Obamacare forever. I frankly don’t give a damn whether federal overreach is justified with the Commerce Clause or the taxing power. It is still overreach. I will believe that the Republicans are serious about doing something when they impeach Roberts.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:16 am
But tax is an ugly word. And no, i don’t care for that part of the ruling.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Legal sophistry is all fine and dandy in theory. Then it runs into a more determined opponent, incompetence on your side, or just plain old bad luck.
Next thing you know, half your paycheck is gone before it leaves your employer’s account and some TSA mouthbreather is juggling your junk at the airport.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:27 am
The problem isn’t in Roberts’ ruling, it’s the fact that it was something that had to be ruled on in the first place.
ACA was a big cake of shit without even the decency to have a nice, fondant covering. Roberts had to serve everyone a slice of it somehow, he was in a no-win situation. You’re getting a slice of shit.
I can’t say he did the right thing or not. The entire premise of making it a tax is going to be a major, major problem for any politician. And from my understanding, Congress has always had the power to tax practically anything anyway.
The more I think about this as ‘shit cake’, the less I’m depressed about the ruling. At least now, it can be left unfunded if enough politicians vote against it.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Yup, either Roberts is a gutless chicken or a political stratergerist par excellence.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Well, since SCOTUS says it’s a Tax, and ALL Taxes have to come from the House, this could be Good or Bad Depending on who’s in Charge of the House.
For example, if the Republicans are in Charge when it’s time to pay for ObamaCare, (if they had any Brains), they could charge everyone $1.00 a head per year, and then take the rest out of HHS’s Budget.
However, if Pelosi’s in Charge, she’ll probably charge everyone who makes over the Minimum Wage a 100% Tax to pay for it,but exempt Congress Critters and her Cronies.
But either extreme probably won’t happen. Gotta keep up that “Spirit of Bipartisanship,” eh?
What WILL happen is BOHICA.
June 29th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Middleman: why not both?
Not wanting to make the “tough” choice can inspire a man to make the “creative” one.
I think the liberals are far too giddy and once again will clap themselves on the back and not think there’s any downside, because -well- there rarely is for them.
So what if the Commerce Clause has a limit? They can remove later or just go “taxes are great”.
So what if they’d have to couch everything as a Tax now? They think selling taxes on “the rich” is a real winner.
So what if States can opt out? They can find a reason to force them back in. Look at the drinking age (though in fairness look at the passing of the double nickle).
Clearly the ruling wasn’t good, but it could have been worse. Like say Roberts going all Commerce Clause.
Going all Commerce Clause means that you have to follow a mandate. Now, you can bribe you way out of a mandate. Oh. Yay.
Also Roberts being motivated by payback doesn’t mean he cares about the actual constitutionality of laws. Quite the opposite really.
June 29th, 2012 at 11:54 am
I still can’t understand how it’s supossed to be a tax.
Obamacare effectively makes it a crime to NOT be covered by health insurance; Should you violate this criminal provision, there is a penalty.
A previous SCOTUS decision, United States v. La Franca, states in part: “A tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act. The two words are not interchangeable, one for the other. No mere exercise of the art of lexicography can alter the essential nature of an act or a thing; and if an exaction be clearly a penalty it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such.”
Thus, the provision of the ACA is CLEARLY a penalty, and previous jurisprudence CLEARLY distinguishes between taxes and penalties.
Thus, as there is NO federal power to mandate healthcare coverage (given that Roberts ruled that the commerce clause doesn’t cut it), the whole bloody shebang is unconstitutional.
June 29th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
I don’t understand how one can get fined for a crime without being convicted of committing the crime in the first place.
How in the hell was one supposed to be penalized for an unlawful act without a conviction?
June 29th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
That’s the magic of it being a tax.
Not buying health insurance isn’t the crime. Failure to pay your bribe… err… tax is the crime.
As for it being a tax or penalty, functionally it acts as a fine, but it is accounted for via the IRS and your taxes.
It’s sort of like being criminilizing loitering by having a standing tax. You see you’re not punished for standing around, but for not paying the tax.
June 29th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Welp … I guess we can tax anything we don’t like now.
How to tax hippies ….
Tax not owning a carry permit.
Tax not driving a car
Tax not eating red meat once a week
Tax not eating bacon
I wonder what else we can tax hippies for not doing?
June 29th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Washington DC still needs to be killed with fire.
June 29th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
And the best part?
The Obama admin is still spinning that it’s a pentalty and Not a tax.
“At a briefing on Air Force One, spksmn Jay Carney said “it’s not a tax…it’s a penalty” over which people have a choice.”
Have it both ways? Sure.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/29/video-axeldouche-still-wont-call-individual-mandate-a-tax-after-scotus-ruling/
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/29/white-house-insists-obamacare-mandate-not-a-tax-its-a-penalty/
Whut?
June 29th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Bullshit. *Regulating* what people *do* via the commerce clause, and penalizing what they *don’t* do via a tax payment for simply not participating in commerce results in the same thing…a citizen paying for something he does not want, and does not wish to participate in.
The country has been flushed down the crapper. Period. Stick a fork in it….its done. So I say we take the Libs down the shitter with us…we need to pass laws that tax everyone who does not own a shotgun for home protection, and a handgun for personal protection outside the home. The impetus for this is the fact that the police can’t be everywhere, and it would cost zillions of dollars to hire enough police to ensure safety.
Every person in the home has to be covered also, so if there are 2 parents and 5 kids, that’s 1 shottie and 7 handguns. If thy cannot prove they have enough guns for everyone, then the need to be taxed appropriately for the burden they place on their fellow taxpayers vis-a-vis the exorbitant taxes needed to provide enough police to protect them.
Yeah…I think that if we screw the libs by taxing them for what THEY don’t want to buy (just like they are now able to tax folks who do not want insurance in order to compel them to buy aginst their will) that will drive home the point of how stupid their law is, and the can of worms that their law just opened with the affirmation of SCOTUS.
June 29th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
It’s a bad idea to tax people who do not own a gun. The only way to verify your gun ownership to avoid the tax is gun registration, and we do not want that, do we now?
June 29th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Hey, I think Roberts “did good.” Rule mandate OK as not a tax, then “Commerce” and “Necessary” cover any action, even without Congress passing a Bill. Rule it unconstitional, hand Dems “activist conservative Republican stick-in-the-mud Court” argument, and “the Rs do not want you to get help with your medical bills.”
No, he found the rabbit BOTH sides had decided was not in the hat. And then beat the ever-expanding use of those clauses with the hatrack the hat was on.
And note, as has so often been overlooked with Kelo, the court also said “It is Constitutional, but bad – voters, kick your [elected] officers to re-do this.”
June 29th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
The writer of that article is an idiot.
Why?
Consider. He starts with this:
… and then proceeds to explain how Roberts’ ruling means Congress can use a tax to compel American citizens to purchase whatever Congress wants them to.
Was this meant to be a joke?
June 29th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
I appreciate that we have a long game to play here, but a dangerous game is still being played. This administration in particular has been VERY quick to use tricks of its own to expand its power. When you give this administration an inch, it buys guns with stimulus dollars and sends them to Mexican drug cartels who kill hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one federal border patrol simply to advance gun control. These are NOT the people to whom you hand a dagger because you know you’re going to get a sword later. They’re just going to stab you while looking you in the eyes soon as their fingers wrap around the handle.
June 30th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
@ 13 Kristopher
Bathing
June 30th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Guys… Congress can tax you for doing nothing. Always could. Don’t believe me? Buy some property and see what the word ‘property tax’ means. You don’t have to do anything year after year, you still will be taxed on the property (and cars in many local entities if you own it,drive it or not.)
And say, even if NO income, don’t you HAVE TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN?
So you always could be taxed.
But never fear, Mitt, if elected, will cancel Obamacare by blanket exemption of every citizen in the U.S., except Nancy Pelosi and Reid (Well I can dream, can’t I?)
July 2nd, 2012 at 12:08 pm
What is this warm liquid landing on my head and running down my back? It feels like piss, it smells like piss…but my “betters” tell me it’s rain? Well, that’s a relief!
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 pm
@hsr47, The “penalty” as you call it, is to be collected by the IRS and is to be determined by your income. Just HTH do you think this isn’t a tax?!?