Page 106 of 122 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,060 of 1220

Thread: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

  1. #1051
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,762

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    A "tax" that you can choose not to pay. You know, like sales taxes.
    Horse dung. You can comply with the law, pay the tax, or be jailed. How can you chose NOT to pay it, in one form or another?

  2. #1052
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    A "tax" that you can choose not to pay. You know, like sales taxes.

    You see that sounds great, but there is no way this bill can become a reality without TAXING the middle class. The govt is trying to sell this mess with all these "you won't have to change" but I don't buy that. After all they LIED - IT'S A TAX.

  3. #1053
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Horse dung. You can comply with the law, pay the tax, or be jailed. How can you chose NOT to pay it, in one form or another?
    If you have health insurance, you don't pay the tax/penalty. Simple. It's a choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    You see that sounds great, but there is no way this bill can become a reality without TAXING the middle class. The govt is trying to sell this mess with all these "you won't have to change" but I don't buy that. After all they LIED - IT'S A TAX.
    But Romney said it's a mandate. Wait, no, it's a tax. Wait, no...
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #1054
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Check out the results to the second question.

    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  5. #1055
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Because even now, after the fact he has surrogates arguing that it is not, in fact, a tax. It is upheld only on the idea that the mandate is construed to be a tax---if it is not a tax, the bill is not legal as the commerce clause has limits to what it can do, but it is now argued that the tax power does not. Im not sure which is the worse idea, to be honest; government should have limits in all of its powers.

    why should political hyperbole be relevant to the discussion on constitutionality?

  6. #1056
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    why should political hyperbole be relevant to the discussion on constitutionality?
    OK let's discuss constitutionality then. The SCOTUS does not make law, they simply evaluate law as to whether it conforms to the constitution, or not. It is NOT "judicial activism" to declare a law, or lower court ruling based on a law, as unconstitional. Justice Roberts wrote a "majority" opinion that NO other justice, even those voting for making the PPACA law stand (based on the commerce clause), would sign on to.

    JUstice Roberts claimed that since IRS was involved, IN A MINOR WAY with the individual mandate, that it was not unconstitutional. A very bad legal decision, IMHO, as it ignores the REAL issue, which is the federal gov't requiring a citizen to purchase a PRIVATE good or service, that has NO basis on any federal power granted by the constitution AT ALL.

    The federal power to tax INCOME (IRS) comes only from the 16th amendment, that simply allows INCOME from all sources to be taxed. IMHO, Roberts has, in fact, become an "activist" judge in allowing HOW INCOME WAS SPENT, rather that simply the income itself, to be subjected to taxation. Two citizens both making EXACTLY $50K in income (from any source) should not be taxed any more, or less, than the other, based on the 14th amendment requiring EQUAL protection under the law.

    The nonsense of our 80,000+ pages of FIT law with the majority of that law addressing how income was spent with credits, deductions and exclusions based NOT on the source of the income, but how that income was LATER spent, is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is far to lenient in giving even a slight INDIRECT relationship to a federally authorized power, to serve as a reason to say that a law is constitutional. Simply using the IRS as a collection agency does NOT make the PPACA fine/penalty LEGAL, as NOTHING in the constitution gives the federal gov't power to order a citizen to buy a private product or service, to reward them for doing so or to punish them for not doing so.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-05-12 at 02:11 PM.
    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #1057
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If you have health insurance, you don't pay the tax/penalty. Simple. It's a choice.



    But Romney said it's a mandate. Wait, no, it's a tax. Wait, no...

    Wordsmith all you want. And boy, oh, boy, is the WH and its minions trying to wordsmith this LIE. IT'S A TAX. We are all going to pay this TAX. It can not happen any other way except to TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS. This "1%" crap ain't gonna buy it and anyone with a grain of intelligence can see it.

    There is no way "THE 1%" can possibly pay for all the 'EXTRAS' needed to make this Obamacare bill crap a reality.

  8. #1058
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    OK let's discuss constitutionality then. The SCOTUS does not make law, they simply evaluate law as to whether it conforms to the constitution, or not. It is NOT "judicial activism" to declare a law, or lower court ruling based on a law, as unconstitional. Justice Roberts wrote a "majority" opinion that NO other justice, even those voting for making the PPACA law stand (based on the commerce clause), would sign on to.

    JUstice Roberts claimed that since IRS was involved, IN A MINOR WAY with the individual mandate, that it was not unconstitutional. A very bad legal decision, IMHO, as it ignores the REAL issue, which is the federal gov't requiring a citizen to purchase a PRIVATE good or service, that has NO basis on any federal power granted by the constitution AT ALL.

    The federal power to tax INCOME (IRS) comes only from the 16th amendment, that simply allows INCOME from all sources to be taxed. IMHO, Roberts has, in fact, become an "activist" judge in allowing HOW INCOME WAS SPENT, rather that simply the income itself, to be subjected to taxation. Two citizens both making EXACTLY $50K in income (from any source) should not be taxed any more, or less, than the other, based on the 14th amendment requiring EQUAL protection under the law.

    The nonsense of our 80,000+ pages of FIT law with the majority of that law addressing how income was spent with credits, deductions and exclusions based NOT on the source of the income, but how that income was LATER spent, is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is far to lenient in giving even a slight INDIRECT relationship to a federally authorized power, to serve as a reason to say that a law is constitutional. Simply using the IRS as a collection agency does NOT make the PPACA fine/penalty LEGAL, as NOTHING in the constitution gives the federal gov't power to order a citizen to buy a private product or service, to reward them for doing so or to punish them for not doing so.
    Don't conservatives believe in people paying for what they get? Didn't the fact that all of us have heath care coverage in the emergency room influence Roberts in his beleif that people should pay something for that "coverage". That and the fact that the mandate was a conservative idea had Robert's stuck on finding a way to make it Constitutional. You guys made your own bed and now are squawking about lieing in it. Roberts simply couldn't be as hypocritical as the rest of you. I don't blame him, it's a mystery to me how Romney can even look at himself in a mirror.
    Last edited by iguanaman; 07-05-12 at 03:01 PM.

  9. #1059
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Don't conservatives believe in people paying for what they get? Didn't the fact that all of us have heath care coverage in the emergency room influence Roberts in his beleif that people should pay something for that "coverage". That and the fact that the mandate was a conservative idea had Robert's stuck on finding a way to make it Constitutional. You guys made your own bed and now are squawking about lieing in it. Roberts simply couldn't be as hypocritical as the rest of you. I don't blame him, it's a mystery to me how Romney can even look at himself in a mirror.
    why would Robert's feel indebted to a policy, simply because it came from a conservative think tank?

    PS some of you people are way too hung up on this whole left vs right thing

  10. #1060
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    OK let's discuss constitutionality then. The SCOTUS does not make law, they simply evaluate law as to whether it conforms to the constitution, or not. It is NOT "judicial activism" to declare a law, or lower court ruling based on a law, as unconstitional. Justice Roberts wrote a "majority" opinion that NO other justice, even those voting for making the PPACA law stand (based on the commerce clause), would sign on to.

    JUstice Roberts claimed that since IRS was involved, IN A MINOR WAY with the individual mandate, that it was not unconstitutional. A very bad legal decision, IMHO, as it ignores the REAL issue, which is the federal gov't requiring a citizen to purchase a PRIVATE good or service, that has NO basis on any federal power granted by the constitution AT ALL.

    The federal power to tax INCOME (IRS) comes only from the 16th amendment, that simply allows INCOME from all sources to be taxed. IMHO, Roberts has, in fact, become an "activist" judge in allowing HOW INCOME WAS SPENT, rather that simply the income itself, to be subjected to taxation. Two citizens both making EXACTLY $50K in income (from any source) should not be taxed any more, or less, than the other, based on the 14th amendment requiring EQUAL protection under the law.

    The nonsense of our 80,000+ pages of FIT law with the majority of that law addressing how income was spent with credits, deductions and exclusions based NOT on the source of the income, but how that income was LATER spent, is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is far to lenient in giving even a slight INDIRECT relationship to a federally authorized power, to serve as a reason to say that a law is constitutional. Simply using the IRS as a collection agency does NOT make the PPACA fine/penalty LEGAL, as NOTHING in the constitution gives the federal gov't power to order a citizen to buy a private product or service, to reward them for doing so or to punish them for not doing so.
    As stated earlier I really don't have strong thoughts on the constitutional question, largely because it's a subject I'm not well versed on. But I'm glad we agree that political hyperbole isn't really relevant to it

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •