Author Topic: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate  (Read 14293 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #175 on: June 28, 2012, 08:53:25 PM »
Only a progressive Marxist could applaud this slavery.
you should stock up on Broccoli

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #176 on: June 28, 2012, 08:55:35 PM »
Nice attempt at dodging!! But, I answered your question, at least TWICE.

One more time: What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?

I know

you believe it

but you have no proof or any objective valid reason

it's based on your fear and is contractually impossible

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #177 on: June 28, 2012, 08:56:22 PM »
you should stock up on Broccoli


Stocking up on ammo, silver eagles, canadian maples, guns, etc.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #178 on: June 28, 2012, 08:58:04 PM »
Stocking up on ammo, silver eagles, canadian maples, guns, etc.

canned fish

I have lots of very good canned sardines, tuna, salmon

never hurts to have a few large bags of rice either

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19258
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #179 on: June 28, 2012, 09:07:36 PM »
I know

you believe it

but you have no proof or any objective valid reason

it's based on your fear and is contractually impossible

Once again, O chicken-hearted one:

What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #180 on: June 28, 2012, 09:11:23 PM »
Once again, O chicken-hearted one:

What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?


nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund

if you have one

other than that they really can't do anything

that's the point I've been trying to get you to understand


MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19258
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #181 on: June 28, 2012, 09:34:40 PM »
nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund

if you have one

other than that they really can't do anything

that's the point I've been trying to get you to understand



Garnishing wages, what is that called again?

OH!!! That could be a civil penalty, genius!!

Wikipedia:

Civil Penalty: A term used to describe when a state entity, government agency, or private party seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual.


The Free Dictionary:

Civil penalties: n. fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations such as late payment of taxes, failure to obtain a permit.


US Legal.Com:

Civil Penalty refers to a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation. It can be fines or surcharges imposed by governmental agencies for enforcing regulations. For example, late payment of taxes could lead to imposition of a civil penalty.

But, YOU just claimed, courtesy of that foolishness from Media Matters, that there would be NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL penalties for not having insurance nor paying the fine.

And, in case you forgot, when the IRS comes calling, it usually charges INTEREST.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #182 on: June 28, 2012, 09:39:38 PM »
Garnishing wages, what is that called again?

OH!!! That could be a civil penalty, genius!!


Wikipedia:

Civil Penalty: A term used to describe when a state entity, government agency, or private party seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual.


The Free Dictionary:

Civil penalties: n. fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations such as late payment of taxes, failure to obtain a permit.


US Legal.Com:

Civil Penalty refers to a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation. It can be fines or surcharges imposed by governmental agencies for enforcing regulations. For example, late payment of taxes could lead to imposition of a civil penalty.

But, YOU just claimed, courtesy of that foolishness from Media Matters that there would be NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL penalties for not having insurance nor paying the fine.

And, in case you forgot, when the IRS comes calling, it usually charges INTEREST.



who said anything about garnishing wages ?

did you miss the part about "no civil or criminal penalties" or do you just not understand  it's meaning?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19258
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #183 on: June 28, 2012, 09:48:43 PM »
who said anything about garnishing wages ?

did you miss the part about "no civil or criminal penalties" or do you just not understand  it's meaning?

nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund

Snatching money from someone's income tax refund is a civil penalty, "a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation"

And with the IRS, it tends to charge interest.

Did you miss the part about Obama, ignoring the texts of the legislation, when it suits his political fortunes (DOMA, immigration)?

A year ago, he said he didn't have the authority by law to enact a DREAM act unilaterally. HE JUST DID THAT about a week ago.

Try again, Straw.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #184 on: June 28, 2012, 09:57:25 PM »
nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund

Snatching money from someone's income tax refund is a civil penalty, "a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation"

And with the IRS, it tends to charge interest.

Did you miss the part about Obama, ignoring the texts of the legislation, when it suits his political fortunes (DOMA, immigration)?

A year ago, he said he didn't have the authority by law to enact a DREAM act unilaterally. HE JUST DID THAT about a week ago.

Try again, Straw.



yep

thats the only way they might actually be able to collect the penalty

what happened to your freak out that Obama was going to throw you in jail?

are we done with that?

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #185 on: June 28, 2012, 10:43:30 PM »
Admit it. You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now.



Reminded me of this Editorial Cartoon I saw earlier...


avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #186 on: June 28, 2012, 10:50:56 PM »
A year ago, he said he didn't have the authority by law to enact a DREAM act unilaterally. HE JUST DID THAT about a week ago.

I don't like Obama's approach on this issue but let's not lose our temper here, shall we? He didn't enact anything; he issued an Executive Order, instructing Executive Branch departments on how they should interpret the law and on how they should exercise their discretionary prosecutorial powers. I've yet to hear a cogent and convincing legal argument that this is equivalent to enacting legislation or that the President doesn't have the authority to instruct executive branch departments on how to interpret the law. But perhaps you'll surprise me MCWAY.



A court could, of course, subsequently rule that the President's interpretation is wrong and that changes the calculus going forward, but that hasn't happened yet.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19258
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #187 on: June 28, 2012, 11:02:30 PM »
yep

thats the only way they might actually be able to collect the penalty

what happened to your freak out that Obama was going to throw you in jail?

are we done with that?

More dodging again, Straw.

You claimed there'd be no civil nor criminal penalty. Then, you shot yourself in the foot by citing the IRS jacking someone's tax refund, which is a CIVIL PENALTY.

As for the jail time, PELOSI is the one who said such a penalty would be fair, for not having insurance nor paying the fine. ObamaCare is a tax. A penalty for not paying your taxes, particularly over a sustained period of time is being thrown in jail.

But, for some silly reason, YOU seem to think that such would never occur, simply because the legislation says so, even though Obama has REPEATEDLY ignored laws on the book and done whatever suited his political fortunes.


garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #188 on: June 29, 2012, 01:34:03 AM »
Guys, quit fighting.
G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #189 on: June 29, 2012, 02:19:33 AM »
Reminded me of this Editorial Cartoon I saw earlier...



Absurd. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #190 on: June 29, 2012, 02:21:18 AM »
I don't like Obama's approach on this issue but let's not lose our temper here, shall we? He didn't enact anything; he issued an Executive Order, instructing Executive Branch departments on how they should interpret the law and on how they should exercise their discretionary prosecutorial powers. I've yet to hear a cogent and convincing legal argument that this is equivalent to enacting legislation or that the President doesn't have the authority to instruct executive branch departments on how to interpret the law. But perhaps you'll surprise me MCWAY.

A court could, of course, subsequently rule that the President's interpretation is wrong and that changes the calculus going forward, but that hasn't happened yet.


False.   He is creating a new class of immigrant. 

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #191 on: June 29, 2012, 04:19:58 AM »

False.   He is creating a new class of immigrant. 
Do you think the ACA ruling is Obama's biggest accomplishment?

I'm just wondering if you think the killing of Bin Laden might have been ever bigger.
G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #192 on: June 29, 2012, 04:28:07 AM »
Do you think the ACA ruling is Obama's biggest accomplishment?

I'm just wondering if you think the killing of Bin Laden might have been ever bigger.

Accomplishment?   LMFAO.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #194 on: June 29, 2012, 04:46:08 AM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #195 on: June 29, 2012, 06:12:16 AM »
THE ROBERTS DOCTRINE
 boblonsberry.com ^ | 06/29/12 | Bob Lonsberry


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 8:52:59 AM by shortstop

There’s a reason no one expected this decision.



It’s because it makes no sense.



It’s not a rational view, it’s not consistent with any of the pleadings, it violates about 200 years of Supreme Court procedure.



And it sets the Constitution on its ear.



In a decision penned by the chief justice of the United States, the court has not only legislated, it has levied a tax. In support of an imperial presidency, it has become sovereign itself.



Precedent is abandoned, rule of law is ignored, jurisprudence is bastardized.



Obama wins and liberty loses.



The government is more powerful, the people are less free, and the Constitution is usurped.



Because the Supreme Court very oddly took an unexpected left turn. And to justify it, the chief justice produced a theory of law which had been raised by neither side, which strains credibility, and which unleashes a previously unimagined federal power.



The power to command a purchase, and to impose a punitive tax on those who fail to obey. Such penalties have previously been seen as fines, not taxes, but the chief justice declared them taxes and, with his liberal friends, imposed the biggest one in the history of the world.



Which plays fast and loose with Article 1 Section 7, which says all revenue bills must arise in the House of Representatives.



The people can only be taxed by the initiative of the most democratic portion of government.



Unless John Roberts decides to suspend the rules. In which case he and his liberal friends can do whatever the hell they want to.



Including redefine the concept of judicial review as understood since the days of Marbury v. Madison. In that landmark case from 210 years ago, the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress was established.



But after yesterday, that’s passé.



Gone are the days of judicial review, come now are the days of judicial rewrite. Instead of declaring a piece of legislation defective, the Supreme Court now takes to itself the power to correct it.



Why leave that matter to the people’s elected representatives when you have an all-knowing court to attend to it?



The chief justice declared that the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause was not constitutional. But, a tax imposed upon the same lines would be acceptable under the It’s None Of Your Damn Business Clause. So the Supreme Court rewrote the Obamacare law to delete the individual mandate and replace it with a corresponding tax.



Judicial review stops when you declare the individual mandate defective. Judicial rewrite begins when you replace it with something you like better.



Forget all that stuff you learned in elementary school about how a bill becomes a law. Under the Roberts Doctrine, the law is whatever five judgetards say it is. Forget the filibuster and the presidential signature, the chief justice has got it covered.



It’s like a plate umpire in baseball, calling balls and strikes. Only one day the pitcher throws the ball, you swing at it and miss, and a strike is called, and something very unusual happens.



The umpire steps out from behind the plate, stands behind you, moves your feet, fixes your crouch, adjusts your grip, tells you how to swing, and then orders the last pitch to be played over while he, holding your hands, swings and hits.



And scores it a homerun.



That’s what the Roberts Five did yesterday.



They cheated. And they did it to enlarge the power of the central government, to increase the tax burden of the American people, and diminish the freedom of the average citizen. You will pay more, choose less and have lower-quality health care. It’s the trifecta of oppression.



Obamacare is a monstrosity, a direct attack on the fundamental American notion of limited government. But its twin evil is a Supreme Court gone rogue, pulling legal arguments out of thin air to justify its capricious acts.



Yesterday was dangerous not so much for what it did, but for what it allows. It allows generations of future despots to claim newer and more sinister powers. History may well show that the assailant of liberty in this entire transaction was not Barack Obama, but John Roberts.



The fate of Obamacare will be determined, as it should be, by the people, at the ballot box in November. This election will be a referendum on Obamacare and the proper role of government. Those who favor Obamacare and a domineering central government will vote for Obama and the Democrats. Those who favor personal freedom and oppose Obamacare will vote for Romney and the Republicans.



Ultimately, the constitutional accountability of the ballot will determine the future of Obamacare.



But John Roberts and his confederates know no such accountability. The precedent of yesterday – the concept of judicial rewrite – and the notion that tax can be used as a punishment for those who fail to buy a government-mandated product, those judicial misdeeds will cast long shadows.



It was a decision no one saw coming.



Because it is illogical, unprecedented and un-American.



But it is the law of the land.



Thanks to John Roberts.



The dweeb who would be king.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #196 on: June 29, 2012, 06:48:05 AM »
The True Impact of the Obamacare Decision
 Townhall.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | Neil Boortz



Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012



Do Americans – do you -- really understand the gravity of what happened in the Supreme Court yesterday? Do you have any idea at all how the power of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been exponentially increased?

Answer? No, you probably don’t. You really can’t be faulted for that, I guess. After all, our wonderful government school system was designed to educate you, but only to the point that you don’t become a threat to your political rulers. The American people are a product of those schools, and the American people are, by and large, acting in the manner proscribed by those who “educated” them.

I spent the better part of yesterday listening to various pundits and reading blogs and columns about the ObamaCare decision. I think a lot of people are missing something here; missing something very important. The Court’s ruling on ObamaCare grants the Congress of the United States the power to command virtually any action – any action that would not in and of itself constitute a crime – of any individual in this country, and to demand compliance with that command or be penalized. The federal government can now regulate virtually any human activity in which you wish to engage, and to regulate whether or not you will be allowed to refuse to participate in that activity, so long as a penalty is attached to your noncompliance.

Perhaps I’m not making my point here; so let me try some scenarios:

Let’s say that you are not a homeowner, but you are wealthy enough to purchase a home if you wished to. Arguably, under today’s ruling the government could force you to purchase that new home. This the government could do in order to promote job creation in the construction industry, and it would be perfectly constitutional so long as a penalty is assessed for your non-compliance. The government would merely say that you are being taxed for your decision not to buy a new home, and our Supreme Court would uphold the law as a bona fide exercise of the government’s taxing power.

The government wants you to change your profession … move to another state … buy more cotton clothing … purchase an American-made car … own no less than a dozen pair of American-made shoes … limit your stock purchases to only unionized companies … put solar panels on your roof … perhaps even start watching MSNBC for a minimum of one hour every night. All of this the government might well be able to do so long as a penalty is levied for your failure to comply with the government directive. The penalty would, of course, be nothing more than a tax, and the regulatory requirement would merely be the government exercising its taxing power. Well … the watching MSNBC requirement might violate the 8th Amendment. They’ll just have to work around that one.

Remember when some reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if the individual mandate was constitutional? Her reply? “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Now she can simply say “Taxing authority, bub. Taxing authority.”

This is a sad day indeed for our Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama’s insurance mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. It’s perfectly fine, though, since there’s a fine for non-compliance. This column is short – because the message is simple. Sit back now and try to imagine anything the federal government cannot require of you – just so long as there is a penalty if you say “no."

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #197 on: June 29, 2012, 06:52:15 AM »
Guys, I figured out how to make Republicans happy about universal healthcare.

Let's invade another country and take theirs, and then we'll tell that country that they are now free.

Agreed?

G

James

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #198 on: June 29, 2012, 07:26:42 AM »
that will happen... lol... no way he keeps that promise.

I don't care for Romney either, but the fact is one of 2 things will happen, either Obama will win his second term, or Romney will win his first, that is it,  and as sad as it is, no 3rd Party candidate is going to win this time around, so voting 3rd party or not voting at all isn't going to change the results, the facts are we either get a another 4 years with Obama, or we get the first 4 years of Romney,  and I agree with Rand Paul and chose Romney.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #199 on: June 29, 2012, 07:36:44 AM »
More dodging again, Straw.

You claimed there'd be no civil nor criminal penalty. Then, you shot yourself in the foot by citing the IRS jacking someone's tax refund, which is a CIVIL PENALTY.

As for the jail time, PELOSI is the one who said such a penalty would be fair, for not having insurance nor paying the fine. ObamaCare is a tax. A penalty for not paying your taxes, particularly over a sustained period of time is being thrown in jail.

But, for some silly reason, YOU seem to think that such would never occur, simply because the legislation says so, even though Obama has REPEATEDLY ignored laws on the book and done whatever suited his political fortunes.



again, just willful stupidty on your part

there is a penalty within the legislation but if you don't pay it you are not subject to criminal or civil penalties

remember this entire freak out by you was about Obama sending you to jail

there is no way under the law that he can send you to jail

It's not possible