SCOTUS upholds Affordable Care Act

[TFatseas]

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

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by TFatseas

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

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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."

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

. . . . . . . . . VOTE ROMNEY! ROMNEY IS BEST!


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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

. . . . . . . . . VOTE ROMNEY! ROMNEY IS BEST!


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

Not really, he flipped flopped on this issue.

[vienna]

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?...

...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by vienna

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?...

...

I don't really think he sees it a a siding in any capacity. I believe he has interpreted correctly. Under the commerce clause it does not fly. Call it a tax and it does fly according to the Constitution.