SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[Joe Miner]

The point I've been trying to make is that Robert wasn't looking at the wording or the read world policy effects, but of his and the Court's constitutional power to adjudicate the IM. And since Congress pinned this "mandate" to a tax - well within it's powers - he deemed it a functional and Constitutional power for Congress. You can tell by reading his opinion he did not want to have to make this decision, but his strict constructionism forced him to.

 

Where we disagree is that Congress pinned this to a tax. I'm pretty sure Congress pinned (and penned) it to a penalty.

 

Although the backup to the backup argument of the federal gov't in this case was that they had the ability to make it a tax. So the Supreme Court decided to go with argument #3 as the first two weren't valid, even though that wasn't actually written in the law.

 

And I'm not really speaking for Robert's personally, I really don't care what his personal views are. I'm using Robert's in place of the Supreme Court.

[LeviF]

I'd like to hear someone in the know address this. I assume that (1) part of the law has provisions for enforcement or (2) it will be enforced through the IRS like every other tax. But I'm not sure.

It will be collected through the IRS, so I'm assuming that it will be enforced through the IRS as well.

[Joe Miner]

Right, I was just throwing in a little Pelosi humor that we can appreciate.

 

Roberts takes judicial restraint seriously, everyone knows that. The rest of them use it when it is convenient. Now that I'm reading his opinion, I can see where he's coming from. Is it the decision I would have made? Probably not, but I can't be sure. To be sure, the dissenting opinions are very strong as well. But it's up to the Chief Justice to establish what the judicial attitudes on the Court will be. He decided that restraint is more important than ideology. I can appreciate that.

 

 

It was an argument that the attorneys made. Roberts didn't pull this out of his ass.

 

Not saying he pulled it out of his ass.

 

Just that if the law that was written didn't say it, and actually specifically said something that was agreed was unconstitutional, construing a different meaning to the law is, IMO, overreaching by the court.

 

Basically the Court fixed the errors in the law for Congress.

[WilliamCody]

Where we disagree is that Congress pinned this to a tax. I'm pretty sure Congress pinned (and penned) it to a penalty.

 

Although the backup to the backup argument of the federal gov't in this case was that they had the ability to make it a tax. So the Supreme Court decided to go with argument #3 as the first two weren't valid, even though that wasn't actually written in the law.

 

And I'm not really speaking for Robert's personally, I really don't care what his personal views are. I'm using Robert's in place of the Supreme Court.

 

I think this is a debate over semantics. The penalty was a tax. So it ultimately comes down to whether you interpret the tax or the penalty portions of the provision to be the real mover behind the law. Roberts seems to think that if a "penalty" is a tax and nothing else, then it is a tax. He's looking at the constitutional functionality of the law as written, not on the efficacy or form of the policy itself.

 

EDIT: and because the "penalty" is tagged to your income tax return, it can be seen as part of the tax code.

Edited June 28, 2012 by WilliamCody

[3rdnlng]

Politically speaking this could be a bad thing for Obama. The majority of people are against this bs law. If it had been ruled unconstituitional or eviscerated then it would have been much less of a factor in the upcoming election. This ruling will fire up that majority and give them a reason to vote against Obama.

[dayman]

So even if states do not comply with teh medicaid expansion their penalty would be merely losing the additional funds necessary, the existing funds they have can not be yanked to compel compliance:

 

 

the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal pov¬erty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children onlyif their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding tocover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. §1396d(y)(1).But if a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage require¬ments, it may lose not only the federal funding for those require¬ments, but all of its federal Medicaid funds.

 

...

 

(b) Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Ser¬vices the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate inthe Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid fund¬ing. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.

 

...

 

The legitimacy of SpendingClause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17. “[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 178. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislationruns counter to this Nation’s system of Federalism

 

...

 

c)

The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaidfunds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whetherto participate in the Medicaid expansion. Pp. 55–58.

6. JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, [did not agree]

Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills

[WilliamCody]

Not saying he pulled it out of his ass.

 

Just that if the law that was written didn't say it, and actually specifically said something that was agreed was unconstitutional, construing a different meaning to the law is, IMO, overreaching by the court.

 

Basically the Court fixed the errors in the law for Congress.

 

This may indeed be the end result, but not, IMO, from some design of the Court or Roberts.

[Joe Miner]

I think this is a debate over semantics. The penalty was a tax. So it ultimately comes down to whether you interpret the tax or the penalty portions of the provision to be the real mover behind the law. Roberts seems to think that if a "penalty" is a tax and nothing else, then it is a tax. He's looking at the constitutional functionality of the law as written, not on the efficacy or form of the policy itself.

 

EDIT: and because the "penalty" is tagged to your income tax return, it can be seen as part of the tax code.

 

When you play politics in writing a bill, you should expect some ramifications.

 

Congress specifically called it a penalty with the intent that it was not a tax. That's not semantics.

[erynthered]

Politically speaking this could be a bad thing for Obama. The majority of people are against this bs law. If it had been ruled unconstituitional or eviscerated then it would have been much less of a factor in the upcoming election. This ruling will fire up that majority and give them a reason to vote against Obama.

 

Thats what I was thinking too. Somebody needs to crunch the numbers to see how much additional TAXES will be taken out of their pay check.

[WilliamCody]

Politically speaking this could be a bad thing for Obama. The majority of people are against this bs law. If it had been ruled unconstituitional or eviscerated then it would have been much less of a factor in the upcoming election. This ruling will fire up that majority and give them a reason to vote against Obama.

 

Time will tell. The reverse is that people will get tired of beating a dead horse now that the case has been decided.

 

And I'm not sure its a clear majority. Have any non-partisan polls to back this up?

[LeviF]

Not saying he pulled it out of his ass.

 

Just that if the law that was written didn't say it, and actually specifically said something that was agreed was unconstitutional, construing a different meaning to the law is, IMO, overreaching by the court.

 

Basically the Court fixed the errors in the law for Congress.

 

When you play politics in writing a bill, you should expect some ramifications.

 

Congress specifically called it a penalty with the intent that it was not a tax. That's not semantics.

Like I said, I probably wouldn't have made the decision Roberts did. It all comes down to what you hold in higher regard. You and I may see Congressional intent to be just as important as the actual function of the bill. But that's not Roberts's style. At least he's consistent, though.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LeviF91

[erynthered]

House to vote to repeal on July 9th

 

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html

[WilliamCody]

House to vote to repeal on July 9th

 

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html

 

Completely useless until November. More distractions.

[PromoTheRobot]

Politically speaking this could be a bad thing for Obama. The majority of people are against this bs law. If it had been ruled unconstituitional or eviscerated then it would have been much less of a factor in the upcoming election. This ruling will fire up that majority and give them a reason to vote against Obama.

Ha. Most people who are against "Obamacare" are in favor of most of it's provisions. Most can't give a single reason why they oppose it. What they oppose is the scary name.

 

So now the GOP is falling back to calling it a tax increase. Next they will call it cooties.

 

PTR

[dayman]

It's a cannon of constitutional construction that you uphold a bill passed by congress if any reasonable construction would make it constitutional. This is not news. Now, whether the function over form was actually going to fly was questionable after the oral arguments b/c lets face it...the US Attorney got up there and would not hit the softball they tossed him...but eventually they just hit it for him and said "Taxing power covers this."

[LeviF]

Ha. Most people who are against "Obamacare" are in favor of most of it's provisions. Most can't give a single reason why they oppose it. What they oppose is the scary name.

No surprises here...but you're wrong. Again.

 

And a quick forum search could have told you that.

 

Or, hell, reading through this thread could have told you that.

 

Now, whether the function over form was actually going to fly was questionable after the oral arguments b/c lets face it...the US Attorney got up there and would not hit the softball they tossed him...but eventually they just hit it for him and said "Taxing power covers this."

I always find it very amusing when the US Attorney is oblivious to the point where they can't make an argument that the justices are handing them on a silver platter.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LeviF91

[dayman]

The next thing is going to be States saying to people under 133% of poverty line "we won't expand medicaid to cover you to spite the Democrats we don't care if federal grants come in we'll reject them, get a life bums." Then the right will cheer this cutting off of the nose to spite the face.

[erynthered]

Here you go fellas. Heres what it going to cost you.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/#

[B-Large]

Ha. Most people who are against "Obamacare" are in favor of most of it's provisions. Most can't give a single reason why they oppose it. What they oppose is the scary name.

 

So now the GOP is falling back to calling it a tax increase. Next they will call it cooties.

 

PTR

 

The GOP is better served to continue to concentrate like a laser on the economy. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and how they will create them is still their best hope for November.

[erynthered]

Completely useless until November. More distractions.

 

 

No it's not.