-
psumichael said...
Well, the mainstream media would be publishing headlines like "Roberts reverses course....what he previously deemed a "tax" no longer qualifies as a tax." You might say, who cares what the media will write/say? Normally I wouldn't, but if you believe that Roberts' decision today was swayed by media/political pressure, then it's relevant.
I hope you're right, MTayl, that this is just a punt and that if Obama gets re-elected this will be struck down in the future for the absurdity that it is. This law/regulation that a tax can't be challenged until it is levied is concerning considering the games politicians play. Obama already played the game by enacting most of the "benefits" of Obamacare in 2009 and putting off the penalty, I mean tax, until 2014. In theory could he have literally put off the penalty, I mean tax, until 2086? And then no one could challenge the legislation until 2086, according to Roberts' ruling?
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
-
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
He wouldn't reverse course at all. He would declare the tax unconstitutional, not declare it not a tax. So that is wrong.
Considering the GOP will hold the house for the forseeable future, and posibly the Senate here soon, there is little to no chance they would push back the mandate period, they would simply eliminate it ithey had the power to do so.
This post was edited by sneakypete on 6/28/2012 at 10:43 PM
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
-
sneakypete said...
To deem it a tax does he not have to say where it falls under? Why he thinks it falls under that? If in hs written ruling he states it's a tax and falls under the excise tax for example when it was challenged later how could he then say it doesn't fit that. Well he obviously can do/say that but he would be flip flopping and he will be shown for what he did today and leave no doubt.
This post was edited by MTayl72 on 6/28/2012 at 10:44 PM
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
He wouldn't reverse course at all. He would declare the tax unconstitutional, not declare it not a tax. So that is wrong.
Considering the GOP will hold the house for the forseeable future, and posibly the Senate here soon, there is little to no chance they would push back the mandate period, they would simply eliminate it ithey had the power to do so.
psumichael ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
1050 votes total - (1042)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
psujmc1992 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
2924 votes total - (5146)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
psumichael said...
Oh, I understand what Roberts would do in the scenario you're throwing out there. I was pointing out that his actions would be twisted and misrepresented by the mainstream media for sure. When I visited the CNN website this morning for kicks I saw about 20 headlines devoted to the ruling/health care, yet none of them pointed out the reason it was upheld was a complete contradiction to the administration's arguments of the past 3 years. CNN probably cycled stories at some point and threw up a headline or two but that was the situation when I checked it out.
Okay, I follow you on paragraph two.
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
psujmc1992 said...
Actually, the lack of common sense and ethics in government and politics is even more concerning. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether or not coercing citizens to pay a penalty was constitutional. For Roberts to say it is constitutional by calling it a "tax" (even though Obama himself says it is not), which he believes to be unconstitutional is the epitome of what is wrong with our judicial system.
This post was edited by MTayl72 on 6/28/2012 at 11:00 PM
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
shavisimo2 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
6534 votes total - (12267)
- 31 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
And you calling the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a pussy makes me want to fucking throw you off a God damned cliff because how embarrassing it is as a citizen. You may not like him (he isn't my favorite right now), you may not agree with anything he stated (I sure as hell do not), but it is a position of elite power and he followed what he believed as far as we have evidence. What Obama says should not, and did not, have any bearing on what he found, as wrong as I feel it may be.
You are no better than the morons calling Obama a N, and the Occupy morons with that view. The Constitution has been interpreted both by liberal and conservative judges in different ways for two centuries. Its the way it is. I'm sorry in your black and white world you want the Justices to follow through with policy actions, I do not. It isn't perfect, and I'm pissed, but your earlier post was moronic. This is a large issue that has not yet been completely resolved. I'm more focused on increasing the lead in the House, winning the Senate, and dealing with our President and his awful policies which got us in this mess in the first place.
psumichael ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
1050 votes total - (1042)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
psumichael ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
1050 votes total - (1042)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
psumichael said...
What Obama said in interviews certainly should have nothing to do with the ruling, but what his administration argued in front of the court certainly does. They argued one thing and the attorneys general rebutted that. Then Roberts made his decision based on an argument the administration didn't even make (and therefore didn't the attorneys general a chance to rebut). I think that's what psumj was getting at.
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
I loathe the decision today, but what some of these people are doing is questioning the overall legitimacy and quality of the American system. That embarrases the shit out of me as a citizen. It is not perfect, but its the best there is.
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
-
psumichael said...
EDIT: BTW, MTayl72, if you haven't already you might want to read the dissenting opinion. I think you'd find it very interesting. It's an absolutely scathing response to Roberts' bizarre ruling. A quote: "The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write."
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
shavisimo2 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
6534 votes total - (12267)
- 31 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
Sneaky earlier raised the best point though. There was one Justice who never should have been involved in this decision. And without her, its most likely 6-3, though we can never prove that and it doesn't matter now.
Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen
-
psumichael ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
1050 votes total - (1042)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
MTayl72 said...
And you calling the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a pussy makes me want to fucking throw you off a God damned cliff because how embarrassing it is as a citizen. You may not like him (he isn't my favorite right now), you may not agree with anything he stated (I sure as hell do not), but it is a position of elite power and he followed what he believed as far as we have evidence. What Obama says should not, and did not, have any bearing on what he found, as wrong as I feel it may be.
You are no better than the morons calling Obama a N, and the Occupy morons with that view. The Constitution has been interpreted both by liberal and conservative judges in different ways for two centuries. Its the way it is. I'm sorry in your black and white world you want the Justices to follow through with policy actions, I do not. It isn't perfect, and I'm pissed, but your earlier post was moronic. This is a large issue that has not yet been completely resolved. I'm more focused on increasing the lead in the House, winning the Senate, and dealing with our President and his awful policies which got us in this mess in the first place.
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
psujmc1992 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
2924 votes total - (5146)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
psujmc1992 said...
My calling him a pussy makes you want to push me off a cliff? How about if I call you a douchebag? What do you want to do now?
What Obama says has no bearing? WTF? The policy as intended by Obama and as written is NOT a tax. Yet Roberts essentially made it a tax, getting the Supreme Court involved in policy making, doing the opposite of what you say he is trying to do. The simple and right answer should have been, it is unconstitutional to coerce citizens to purchase insurance. It should have been up to Obama and his friends to find the loophole to get it through.
Finally, the day I listen to a 24 or so year old kid a week into his first job for political insight, you won't have to push me off a cliff. I'll jump voluntarily.
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
Idc what you call me. That isn't attacking a position of power for makking an interpretation.
Obama doesn't matter at that point. If he reads it as a tax, whether intended that way or not, that's what he cites. If Obama says something isn't a tax because he doesn't want to use that word, it doesn't make it not a tax. I disagree with the opinion. Said it umteenth time. But it would be a bigger issue if he believed it was a tax and went with the party. He clearly does not believe in the quality of the law.
Over 2 years now. New job was just started a month ago. The job before it I ran programs including contract approval and auditing and compliance. You may not want to listen to me but your tunnel vision to this case hurts no one but yourself. If you don't care to understand that's your issue.
Its ridiculous I feel the need to defend an action I disagree with on the result. The action itself is not wrong, that is his interpretation. I fully disagree with it however. And respect his decision begrudgingly.
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
psujmc1992 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
2924 votes total - (5146)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
psujmc1992 said...
And once again, the Court was asked a question, is it legal for the federal government to force John Q Public or his employer to buy health insurance? It was not asked, how can the federal government word this bill so that it is constitutional? Yet that is what they did. In one fell swoop, he accomplished everything you believe be was trying to avoid.
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11088 votes total - (12420)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | ... | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | ... | 163
Off Topic Board