SCOTUS upholds Affordable Care Act
 

http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.ph...droidwidth=300


From the Scotus blog live viewer. Interesting!

They struck down the Stolen Valor Act. :nope:

Yeah, that's one of those laws that feels right but reads wrong. I can see how it didn't pass First Amendment scrutiny, the courts opinion seems to leave plenty of room to relegislate, though.

There is plenty of room now to call anything a "tax" and then mandate it under the premise it is a tax.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1z6ESIZS3

From here on out whatever the government wants from the people it will be labelled as a tax.

I was talking about the Stolen Valor Act :up:

I see what you mean about the tax clause setting a rather wide precedent. However, I think the only reason that this was argued under the Commerce Clause and not the taxing power is because all involved knew that passing the Act and selling it to the people would have been impossible had it been classified as a tax.

The Government argues to the Court that it is not a tax and SCOTUS upholds it because it IS a tax?

:doh:

I see it promises to become a happy-debate-day in America again today! :O: The question is: will Neal take the opportunity and ask Germany for political asylum, or will he face the challenge and dares to return? :D

In short..we were hoodwinked. Welcome to the USA :yeah:

There is no debating. It is only opening our checkbooks to pay for everyone's well being. It is additional cash to help those who develop lung cancer from cigarettes purchased on government subsidized EBT cards. Now we can provide chemo! Awesome! :yeah:

I recommend all invest in General Electric Healthcare.

The Solicitor General did advance the tax argument. Admittedly it was not the administrations main argument.



AVG- I don't think anyone was hoodwinked in this.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf

Opinion is linked above. The taxing element is around page 32 onwards

Either way today's decision has opened a floodgate. From here on out any new program will be mandated and funded by taxes. It is not a commerce type transaction then.

It would have been surprising if SCOTUS had ruled the Health Care Law unconstitutional. This is and always has been a political debate, it is for Congress and elected politicians to decide this issue. Congress wanted to pass the hot potato to SCOTUS and it has now been handed back.

There are many parts I like about the new legislation. What I don't like is mincing words such as commerce clause and taxes. It opens a new door on other proposed "programs."

:stare: . . . :stare: . . . :06: . . . :hmmm: VOTE ROMNEY! ROMNEY IS BEST!


...even if he is crook too...

What is particularly interesting in the last two SCOTUS rulings is the position of the Chief Justice in the decisions. Roberts has sided with the "liberal" arm of the Court in both decisions; given that his initial appointment was seen as a means of blunting the "liberal" impact on Court decisions, does this indicate a swing away from the hard "conservative" block seen in prior decisions? Is Roberrts going over to the "Dark Side" (at least in the eyes of the Tea Party faction)? It has been seen in the past how some Chief Justices and Associate Justices have had their percieved philosophical leanings coming into the Court tempered by having spent some time actually on the Court bench. Is this an indicator of a possible future swing away from strict ideology?... :hmm2:

...