Author Topic: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate  (Read 14170 times)

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #225 on: June 29, 2012, 11:37:38 AM »
there will be enforceme of some kind but it can never be enforcement that will put you in jail, put a lien against your property or garnish your  wages

The IRS will be in charge of collecting the penalty and as I speculated last night, the first avenue will probalby be to net the penalty against overpayment of taxes (i.e. your tax refund)

Again - they have no means by which to put you in jail which was what you were pissing your pants about for the last two pages

Since the Federal law was modeled on the Romney plan they will probably collect the penalty in a similar way

That's a civil penalty. What part of that don't you understand?

You just said that the "first avenue". What's the second avenue? The third?

Yet again, you display your utter buffoonery by claiming the Obama administration can't do something, simply because the law says so. Obama just shot that premise down with immigration.

Everything the law said he can't do, regarding immigration (and what even HE said he couldn't do last year), he JUST DID a few days back, DESPITE the laws on the books.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #226 on: June 29, 2012, 11:55:56 AM »
i think over the next week or three.... after repubs have left Mitt enjoy pissed off donations, and the house has their little ceremonial vote...

repub pundits will begin to admit publically the bill is policy now, and can't be defeated by picking off piece-by-piece the things like "All children get insured" and "No denial for pre-existing conditions".

The indiv mandate is the backbreaker, and it's staying.  Rational voices now admit there is no stopping obamacare.  The emotional ones will need another 3 weeks for it to sink in.  33, do you agree?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #227 on: June 29, 2012, 12:01:09 PM »
That's a civil penalty. What part of that don't you understand?
You just said that the "first avenue". What's the second avenue? The third?

Yet again, you display your utter buffoonery by claiming the Obama administration can't do something, simply because the law says so. Obama just shot that premise down with immigration.

Everything the law said he can't do, regarding immigration (and what even HE said he couldn't do last year), he JUST DID a few days back, DESPITE the laws on the books.

I already explained that to you (I even wrote that you would choose not to understand the difference)

I assume you at least understand that you're not going to get thrown in jail which was the original thing you were bitching about


kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #228 on: June 29, 2012, 01:04:37 PM »
Until March 2010, a federal law mandating purchase of health insurance didn't exist.

And your point is what? Prior to Bush we didn't have a monster deficit, two wars and an international reputation in shambles.
 
But hey it is what it is. Now go back to hating on the gays, something you're fond of.
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #229 on: June 29, 2012, 01:40:46 PM »
And your point is what? Prior to Bush we didn't have a monster deficit, two wars and an international reputation in shambles.
 
But hey it is what it is. Now go back to hating on the gays, something you're fond of.

more blame bush - jesus christ you obamabots are sick in the head.

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #230 on: June 29, 2012, 02:07:19 PM »
more blame bush - jesus christ you obamabots are sick in the head.

I'm not blaming bush for this health care legislation at all. Just making a point to McBigot
Abandon every hope...

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #231 on: July 02, 2012, 03:46:34 AM »
And your point is what? Prior to Bush we didn't have a monster deficit, two wars and an international reputation in shambles.
 
But hey it is what it is. Now go back to hating on the gays, something you're fond of.

Stop blaming Bush!! All the deficits started when Obama took office!!

And the wars was started by Obama as well!!

Im a repub voter and my brain capacity only allows me to remember 2 days back


chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #232 on: July 02, 2012, 05:52:11 AM »
Stop blaming Bush!! All the deficits started when Obama took office!!

And the wars was started by Obama as well!!

Im a repub voter and my brain capacity only allows me to remember 2 days back


...warS started with Obama?  then who was that on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming 'victory' in Iraq? 
w

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #233 on: July 02, 2012, 07:34:36 AM »
...warS started with Obama?  then who was that on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming 'victory' in Iraq? 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #234 on: July 02, 2012, 09:53:38 AM »
 :-\

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law
By Jan Crawford

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress' power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.

The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn't have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.

On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.

Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/