Why the mandate was valid under taxing power

[dayman]

Hard for me to see how the Conservative wing considers their opinion more conservative than Roberts. Federal v. State. Courts v. 2 branches. 2 sources of tension inherent in our system. If you can fairly construe it to be constitutional (as is your duty), and in such a way that narrows the possibility of future commerce clause expansion as well as bolstering States rights when is comes to taking some but not all the bribes the Federal Government will offer them...that to me is the most conservative holding there is. Splicing words in an asinine textualist nature and saying over and over the Federal government could have done this but that it's not what they could have done but what they did (while at the same time saying admitting it is your duty to "if at all possible" construe the statute as constitutional), looking to form over substance as to determine what they did...in general the dissenting opinion is just weak. But that's just me. And Scalia is typically weak to me when he gets his hard on textualist nonsense flowing. It was a tough case, and honestly given the apparent 3 approaches the court as a whole took....I have to say Roberts proved himself to be a good C.J. who IMO produced the best opinion of them all.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

From Roberts:

"The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A (of the ACA) would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."

Going as far back as McCulloch it's been understood that the power to tax is the power to destroy. It's functionally absurd to say one doesn't have the power to compel another to do something, but that entity may impose penalties (er, um, taxes) that effectively negate this limitation.

 

Hard for me to see how the Conservative wing considers their opinion more conservative than Roberts. Federal v. State. Courts v. 2 branches. 2 sources of tension inherent in our system. If you can fairly construe it to be constitutional (as is your duty), and in such a way that narrows the possibility of future commerce clause expansion as well as bolstering States rights when is comes to taking some but not all the bribes the Federal Government will offer them...that to me is the most conservative holding there is. Splicing words in an asinine textualist nature and saying over and over the Federal government could have done this but that it's not what they could have done but what they did (while at the same time saying admitting it is your duty to "if at all possible" construe the statute as constitutional), looking to form over substance as to determine what they did...in general the dissenting opinion is just weak. But that's just me. And Scalia is typically weak to me when he gets his hard on textualist nonsense flowing. It was a tough case, and honestly given the apparent 3 approaches the court as a whole took....I have to say Roberts proved himself to be a good C.J. who IMO produced the best opinion of them all.

Roberts opinion is fairly contrived. I know that modern day Avoidance canon suggests if an interpretation can be construed so as not to violate the constitution it should be done. I don't agree that's what happened here. The logic is flawed. If the penalty is a tax the case isn't ripe. If it isn't a tax, according to Roberts' logic, it is unconstitutional. One need not adhere to strict textualism to find the holes in this argument.

 

Also, and I'll have to revisit my LegReg notes for examples, but Scalia doesn't always adhere to strict textualism. He often uses functional arguments when they advance his argument.

 

Edit: I also have yet to here a solid counterargument to Scalia's point that the court has never "treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’”

Edited July 1, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

 

 

Roberts opinion is fairly contrived. I know that modern day Avoidance canon suggests if an interpretation can be construed so as not to violate the constitution it should be done. I don't agree that's what happened here. The logic is flawed. If the penalty is a tax the case isn't ripe. If it isn't a tax, according to Roberts' logic, it is unconstitutional. One need not adhere to strict textualism to find the holes in this argument.

 

Also, and I'll have to revisit my LegReg notes for examples, but Scalia doesn't always adhere to strict textualism. He often uses functional arguments when they advance his argument.

 

 

Scalia uses whatever suits him at the time. Thomas uses actual principle (regardless of what you think of that principle).

 

In any event, I do agree that it is not the holding of the mandate as a tax but the Anti-Injunction analysis that was the most acrobatic. However, the absolute worst outcome for the country would have been to hold it a tax and then punt until 2015. Also, the analysis under that section does nothing of significance and is plausible enough...if the country was saved a crippling wait of uncertainty at the expense of the anti-injunction act that is nothing anybody can honestly say with a straight non-partisan face they care about.

[Rob's House]

Scalia uses whatever suits him at the time. Thomas uses actual principle (regardless of what you think of that principle).

 

In any event, I do agree that it is not the holding of the mandate as a tax but the Anti-Injunction analysis that was the most acrobatic. However, the absolute worst outcome for the country would have been to hold it a tax and then punt until 2015. Also, the analysis under that section does nothing of significance and is plausible enough...if the country was saved a crippling wait of uncertainty at the expense of the anti-injunction act that is nothing anybody can honestly say with a straight non-partisan face they care about.

I can't agree with that rationale. On one hand it's arguing that we must follow the rule of law and on the other that we must ignore a law if it's inconvenient to our purpose.

[dayman]

 

 

Edit: I also have yet to here a solid counterargument to Scalia's point that the court has never "treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’”

 

 

Yet:

 

this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. -Scalia Dissent

 

...so they've never done it. At some point they had never done the above either. And if in fact the analysis goes to substance, I see no reason the door doesn't swing both ways.

 

I can't agree with that rationale. On one hand it's arguing that we must follow the rule of law and on the other that we must ignore a law if it's inconvenient to our purpose.

 

Well it's more that on one had we most decide what the law is and in doing so we must be mindful of the constitutional forces that pull in opposite directions and when the rubber meets the road with issues of federalism, spereation of powers, constitutional construction, and then...the anti-injunction act...it's clear that the creature of statute...the feeble (by comparison) anti-injunction act will be what is thrown under the buss (and obviously so). Even Scalia himself wasn't too pissed about that at least he didn't make a huge deal about it...

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

Yet:

 

this Court has held that a tax imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. -Scalia Dissent

 

...so they've never done it. At some point they had never done the above either. And if in fact the analysis goes to substance, I see no reason the door doesn't swing both ways.

 

 

 

Well it's more that on one had we most decide what the law is and in doing so we must be mindful of the constitutional forces that pull in opposite directions and when the rubber meets the road with issues of federalism, spereation of powers, constitutional construction, and then...the anti-injunction act...it's clear that the creature of statute...the feeble (by comparison) anti-injunction act will be what is thrown under the buss (and obviously so). Even Scalia himself wasn't too pissed about that at least he didn't make a huge deal about it...

Well, unless they're ruling that the anti-injunction act is itself unconstitutional I'm not sure how they get around that. Secondly, and I know there have been decisions that uphold the use of taxes to influence activity (which imo is repugnant to the constitution) but this undeniably takes that concept to uncharted territory where it's now hard to consider what limits, if any, congress has in its coercive use of the tax code. Further, Roberts goes on to point out the absurdity that would result (i.e. forcing people to buy vegetables to further health concerns) and then turns around and gives congress the very power to enact such absurdities. He's got some 'splainin to do.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

Well, unless they're ruling that the anti-injunction act is itself unconstitutional I'm not sure how they get around that. Secondly, and I know there have been decisions that uphold the use of taxes to influence activity (which imo is repugnant to the constitution) but this undeniably takes that concept to uncharted territory where it's now hard to consider what limits, if any, congress has in its coercive use of the tax code. Further, Roberts goes on to point out the absurdity that would result (i.e. forcing people to buy vegetables to further health concerns) and then turns around and gives congress the very power to enact such absurdities. He's got some 'splainin to do.

 

The anti-injunction argument is pretty basic actually. It's a statute, it's a creature of Congress. The Constitution is not. The Congress could not expand their powers under Constitution by labeling..that would be absurd, for that analysis the court must look to the substance of what Congress is doing and whether it is within their power.

 

For the purpose of how their own statutes relate to each other however, a more textual approach is appropriate. How creations of Congress relate to each other is fairly cut and dry, look to what Congress wrote. And as Roberts said that has been the practice:

 

Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat itas such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functionslike a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congressmay not, for example, expand its power under the TaxingClause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause’s constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a “tax.” See Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259U. S. 20, 36–37 (1922); Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767, 779 (1994).

 

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the bestevidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described “taxes” even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-InjunctionAct applies to “Child Labor Tax” struck down as exceeding Congress’s taxing power in Drexel Furniture).

 

Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. For example, 26 U. S. C. §6671(a) provides that “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by” subchapter 68B of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

 

When Roberts cites the absurdity of forcing someone to buy vegetables he is referring to that by regulatory authority. Not by taxing authority. And if you feel that the tax code should not be used as it has been, fair enough a lot of people feel that way. That's an issue for you to take up with Congress though, not the Supreme Court.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[CosmicBills]

Long story short there are no "villains" but if you are looking for them they aren't the insurance companies. There's only one group that benefits from the rising costs and it sure as hell isn't them...we all know who that is....

 

Nope. Entirely disagree.

 

I'm a (relatively) young white male with a chronic disease. The disease, while not fatal, requires not only medication but surgical procedures to keep in check. It's a disease I was diagnosed with when I was 18, and despite uncertainty as to the cause of the disease, most medical professionals will tell you it's genetic rather than environmental. In other words, I was born with this condition and without the necessary medication and surgeries, the disease can indeed become life threatening.

 

I didn't bring this upon myself. I didn't make a wrong choice or eat the wrong food or take the wrong pill. In a family of six children, I was the only one afflicted with this disease. But hey, that's life. I know that. I'm not complaining about having a disease -- it's how things go. Even when I was 18 I knew that the diagnosis was going to put a crimp in my life plans. It was going to force me to carry insurance my whole life because without it, the meds can cost upwards of 12k per month -- let alone any hospital bills or doctor's bills that would come along.

 

I didn't complain. I didn't begrudge my creator for sticking me with this disadvantage. I was fortunate enough to be born into a family that had some financial means -- and good health insurance plans. Despite wanting to broaden my horizons, I stayed close to home for financial reasons. I simply couldn't afford to pursue the dreams I had AND pay for the health insurance I was now required to have for the rest of my life. So I took up employ in the family business, keeping myself on the family health plan I'd been my entire life. After all, so far, the insurance company had done nothing but take care of my health issues without complaint.

 

Of course, what I forgot to factor into that equation was until that moment, the insurance company had no idea I had a medical condition. How quickly things changed.

 

The moment my health insurance company, the very one I'd been a member of for 18 years, discovered my chronic condition, they began a systematic crusade designed to not only price me out of coverage, but to avoid paying ANYTHING when it came to my condition. At first my rates went up. WAY up. Okay, that's to be expected. I cost more to cover so I should pay a bit more than normal. No problems with that. I happily accepted that, even with my job, I was paying close to 300 bucks a month for insurance. Hell, it was cheaper than paying the full price of the medicine a month so I figured I was coming out on top.

 

Eventually I learned that the family business wasn't for me. Not only was I completely terrible at it, I foresaw the next 40 years of my life going by in excruciating boredom. That's not something I was going to allow, so I decided to make a career change. Again, I was fully aware of the additional costs I'd have to endure to do such a thing. Having a pre-existing condition I knew I couldn't just drop my coverage otherwise I'd never get it back. I also knew that I couldn't just get a new plan that covered me as well as my old one. So, I sucked it up and transitioned from my family plan to my own through the same company. In fact, it was the SAME policy. With a monthly premium beginning at $525, I set off on a new path.

 

It wasn't more than three months into this new plan that my premiums began a dramatic climb once again. Going from $525 to over $850 in less than 6 months. In that time, nothing had changed with regards to my health. Other than my condition, which was happily in remission, I was healthy and happy. No broken bones, no emergency surgeries. The only claims made were for my monthly medicine designed to keep my disease in remission. I never missed a payment even with the increased costs. This was my cross to bear so I did.

 

And I did it without complaint. But the premiums kept going up, eventually topping out over 1,050 bucks. At 22 years old I wasn't just carrying an insurance policy, I was carrying a virtual mortgage on top of rent, car, insurance, student loans, taxes etc. To do this, I was forced to work three jobs. And again, I did them. I've never been on any state of federal assistance program, and I always, always paid my premiums. Each and every month. Sometimes more than once a month when the "funky" paper work began.

 

That's when the claims started being denied. At first it was for the monthly meds. They wouldn't outright come and deny them at first, rather they would claim the orders needed to be renewed by the doctor despite having over 3 months left on the last referral. The purpose, I learned, wasn't to avoid paying for the meds but to alter my dosage schedule so the drugs would become less efficient -- thus forcing me to change to a cheaper medicine. If that isn't manipulative and down right evil, I don't know what is.

 

But again, I was lucky enough to have some money. I paid, out of pocket, five times that year alone to cover my meds (almost 20k). I did it because I knew I needed to receive treatment on time. Twice my doctor covered me with free samples because he too was outraged by what was going on. It took over 4 years for me to get refunded that money. FOUR YEARS to get the insurance company to do the job I (continued) to pay them for.

 

A year later, I couldn't cover the medicine cost. I had paid my premium already, my insurance was current and the referral was current, but the Insurance Company complained that they had misplaced the paper work(!) They gave me the run around for weeks, saying they were working on it -- all the while knowing full well that being off even a week with my meds raises the possibility of an allergic reaction. Unable to cover the 6k needed, one month without medicine stretched into three. Which resulted in my body building up anti-bodies to the medicine and landed me in the hospital for the first time in my life. It also resulted in a bill of close to 80k that the insurance company also refused to pay initially.

 

That was just the beginning. Over the next eight years, the insurance company waged war against me. Twice denying me emergency coverage (bills of 80k and 50k which took 5 years to get the insurance company to pay), and dozens of times denying me the necessary medicine I needed -- which twice resulted in long stays in the hospital and, I believe, unnecessary surgery.

 

As if that weren't enough, suddenly my billing cycles began to change every other month. They'd send letter after letter saying rates were going up, due dates were being changed -- each time a different date, different structure, different scale. This wasn't done out of some need for administrative efficiency on their part, it was done to literally drown me in paper. Confuse me. Force me to pay late so they could drop my coverage and not be forced to pick me back up.

 

It didn't work. I paid on time, every time. I was fortunate to be able to. But there are millions of people just like me who can't. They aren't milking the system or causing their own health related issues, they are suffering at the hands of their OWN health insurance providers who find their illness to be an inconvenience to the corporate bottom line. People who are denied coverage or medical necessities not for legal reasons, but for paper trickery. The health insurance companies KNOW they can afford to drag out payments and their customers can't. And since their main drive is profit, not health care, the insurance companies continue to do exactly that. If you don't believe me, go ask someone under 40 who has been diagnosed with cancer. Health Insurance companies are driven by one thing and one thing only: PROFIT. And that should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the equation when you are discussing the health and well being of your population. The moment you become a threat to the corporate bottom line, they will find a way to f*ck you.

 

Again, this isn't some sort of lefty anti-capitalistic driven diatribe. This is my life. Had I not lived it, I wouldn't believe it either. But I've seen first hand the underbelly of the beast. I've been trampled by it, kicked to **** by it, and then they ask me to thank them. Well f*ck that. F*ck it right in the ear, I say. In my story, the insurance company was liable and wound up paying for everything. I "won" each and every case against them. But still, it took months, if not years, for the Insurance Company to pay. Long after the financial and physical damage was done. If I had not been as fortunate as I am financially, it would have destroyed my credit and my ability to work. Hell, I'd be dead by now if I didn't have money. I know it and they know it. The fact I'm not is only a testament to the fact that with money, you can buy health in this country. And I for one just think that's flat out un-American. It's no way to operate as a civilization let alone a nation.

 

I made my choice knowingly. I knew I'd pay more for premiums and be saddled with a burden that other healthy 20 somethings weren't faced with. I didn't complain. I paid what was asked when it was asked for, never missing a payment. All I expected in return was the service I was allegedly paying for. But it was denied over and over again. Why? Because it's cheaper for them to make me foot the bills and sweat it out while they drag their feet. It's cheaper for me to die than it is for the company I employ to provide the services I pay them for.

 

Are Health Insurance companies the only ones to blame for the health care crisis in America? No. Never said they were. But they provide absolutely no function OTHER than to make a profit for their investors. And the moment that profit buts heads with life or death is the moment that evil takes over. Always has, always will.

[dayman]

What you have described is your experience with your health insurance company. Nothing more. Lucky for you, the ACA will help people like you in the future a lot by regulating the behavior of insurance more closely and controlling the price of drugs. To suggest that is insurance generally, it wrong. I don't blame you for feeling as you do about your own policy/company and situation under those facts. Once again btw, many insurance companies have no investors and run not for profit models. And many that run for profit models vary in terms of their response to stories such as yours. Characterizing the entire insurance industry based on that example, is no accurate for the purposes of this discussion. Generally speaking the profit they pull is between 2 and 3 percent.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

The anti-injunction argument is pretty basic actually. It's a statute, it's a creature of Congress. The Constitution is not. The Congress could not expand their powers under Constitution by labeling..that would be absurd, for that analysis the court must look to the substance of what Congress is doing and whether it is within their power.

 

For the purpose of how their own statutes relate to each other however, a more textual approach is appropriate. How creations of Congress relate to each other is fairly cut and dry, look to what Congress wrote. And as Roberts said that has been the practice:

 

Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat itas such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functionslike a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congressmay not, for example, expand its power under the TaxingClause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clauses constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a tax. See Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259U. S. 20, 3637 (1922); Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767, 779 (1994).

 

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,however, are creatures of Congresss own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the bestevidence of Congresss intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described taxes even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-InjunctionAct applies to Child Labor Tax struck down as exceeding Congresss taxing power in Drexel Furniture).

 

Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. For example, 26 U. S. C. §6671(a) provides that any reference in this title to tax imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by subchapter 68B of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

 

When Roberts cites the absurdity of forcing someone to buy vegetables he is referring to that by regulatory authority. Not by taxing authority. And if you feel that the tax code should not be used as it has been, fair enough a lot of people feel that way. That's an issue for you to take up with Congress though, not the Supreme Court.

Congress can narrow the scope of the court's appellate jurisdiction per article III and Marbury. The better argument is that the case wasn't to challenge the validity of the tax but rather to challenge the laws validity under the commerce clause and the ultimate result of ruling that it's a tax was incidental to the original case, not a decision on the validity of the tax itself, which would leave the door open to challenge the tax after someone has paid it.

 

The fact that ACA and Injuntion Act are both acts of congress is irrelevant because no one is alleging that the injunction act in any way invalidates ACA.

 

As far as whether the court should decide whether Congress has exceeded its constitutional power to tax, if the answer is no then we've essentially eradicated the concept of judicial review. That's not necessarily a bad thing. As you well know, the constitution never expressly allocated that role to the court, but rather the door was unlocked in Marbury and kicked open in McCulloch. In short, the court annointed itself the final arbiter of constitutionality. But if the court can't decide whether that act of congress is constitutional, why can it decide whether any act of congress is constitutional?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

Congress can narrow the scope of the court's appellate jurisdiction per article III and Marbury. The better argument is that the case wasn't to challenge the validity of the tax but rather to challenge the laws validity under the commerce clause and the ultimate result of ruling that it's a tax was incidental to the original case, not a decision on the validity of the tax itself, which would leave the door open to challenge the tax after someone has paid it.

 

The fact that ACA and Injuntion Act are both acts of congress is irrelevant because no one is alleging that the injunction act in any way invalidates ACA.

 

As far as whether the court should decide whether Congress has exceeded its constitutional power to tax, if the answer is no then we've essentially eradicated the concept of judicial review. That's not necessarily a bad thing. As you well know, the constitution never expressly allocated that role to the court, but rather the door was unlocked in Marbury and kicked open in McCulloch. In short, the court annointed itself the final arbiter of constitutionality. But if the court can't decide whether that act of congress is constitutional, why can it decide whether any act of congress is constitutional?

 

The Congress can monkey with appellate jurisdiction b/c it is expressly in the text of the constitution. That's besides the point. The challenge to the validity of the Mandate necessarily turns on whether it's an exercise of commerce clause or taxing clause power. The Anti-Injunction act is relevant not b/c it would invalidate it but as you said early, it would effect standing. The relationship between creatures of congress to themselves and to the constitution is inherently different. As for there being no limits on the taxing power, that ignores the entire opinion Roberts wrote. While the limits are far broader than under the commerce clause, he went through the tax analysis precisely b/c at some point an exercise of that power ceases to be a taxing clause question and crosses over into the more limited commerce clause power. There is case law on that issue, and will no doubt be more in the future.

[Rob's House]

The Congress can monkey with appellate jurisdiction b/c it is expressly in the text of the constitution. That's besides the point. The challenge to the validity of the Mandate necessarily turns on whether it's an exercise of commerce clause or taxing clause power. The Anti-Injunction act is relevant not b/c it would invalidate it but as you said early, it would effect standing. The relationship between creatures of congress to themselves and to the constitution is inherently different. As for there being no limits on the taxing power, that ignores the entire opinion Roberts wrote. While the limits are far broader than under the commerce clause, he went through the tax analysis precisely b/c at some point an exercise of that power ceases to be a taxing clause question and crosses over into the more limited commerce clause power. There is case law on that issue, and will no doubt be more in the future.

I'll be honest. I've only read excerpts because, quite frankly, as bored as I am at work I'm not bored enought to read a 190+ page opinion, but can you summarize an articulable limit to the taxing power as laid out by Roberts?

[dayman]

I'll be honest. I've only read excerpts because, quite frankly, as bored as I am at work I'm not bored enought to read a 190+ page opinion, but can you summarize an articulable limit to the taxing power as laid out by Roberts?

 

As is always the case the court does not rule beyond what is necessary. As such you don't he didn't proclaim a bright line rule as he found:

 

We have already explained that the shared responsibil¬ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as atax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power.

 

That's not to say he was without comment, just read the back half of the summary on the first page. There you will find factors and considerations he used to reach that conclusion. As for the broader end of that spectrum, he references cases where they "policed these limits aggressively"...(so we could read those cases for more information on the outer limits)

 

Just read the short summary in the first post for more specifics all the quotes in this post are taken from there.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

As is always the case the court does not rule beyond what is necessary. As such you don't he didn't proclaim a bright line rule as he found:

 

We have already explained that the shared responsibil¬ity payments practical characteristics pass muster as atax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power.

 

That's not to say he was without comment, just read the back half of the summary on the first page. There you will find factors and considerations he used to reach that conclusion. As for the broader end of that spectrum, he references cases where they "policed these limits aggressively"...(so we could read those cases for more information on the outer limits)

 

Just read the short summary in the first post for more specifics all the quotes in this post are taken from there.

Can we just agree that I'm right and you're wrong?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

Can we just agree that I'm right and you're wrong?

 

 

Haha, I will agree that you find the dissent more compelling and I find the controlling law a better ruling. (in other words I'm right and your wrong )

Edited July 2, 2012 by TheNewBills

[ExiledInIllinois]

On another note... Forget the whole automobile isurance thing. Isn't ordering somebody to have health insurance just as valid as ordering them to have a vaccine? What they should do is tax the crazy parents that opt out of vaccinating their children! How many people would agree with this? For some, vaccines do cause harm.

[dayman]

Scalia will be on Piers Morgan Tongith at 9 I think for an hour long interview