SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling

[Danny Tanner]

I feel sorry for those of you who aren't driving GM vehicles, because without one in your driveway, you'll be taxed next!

 

[okiemaggie]

At least SCOTUS called a spade, a spade. It is a tax and it was crafted to be a tax. Whether you think you've won or lost with this decision, you will PAY for the dance.

 

[doctorjj]

Because it's not a tax.

 

[farmerbyron]

Wonder how long until the EPA forces us to all buy a hybrid?

 

[POSITIVE DISCONTENT]

More power is stolen everyday.

 

[Street Rat]

I'm one election away from just giving up.

 

[SMS]

this has to be the most confusing opinion I've ever seen come down from the high court. It's constitutional but not for the reasons POTUS gave. He claimed it wasn;t a tax but that's the exact reason the Justices said it could be constitutional. I think we just saw another case of the court trying to make policy

I am baffled by this. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to deem a law constitutional or not? What gives them the right to "change" a law? Does the Supreme Court have the right to change the law to a tax when it wasn't designed so originally?

What the President said in public statements is irelevent.

The administrations lawyers argued in court that it was a tax...and the court agreed with that argument. The court didn't change the law to make it a tax, they agreed with the administration's argument that it should be defined as a tax...and was therefore within the scope of Congress' authority.

Scary thing is what else will decide to pass and deem a tax now?

 

[inactive]

I tend to agree. What it boils down to in my mind is that they only reiterated that congress has authority to tax. So in other words they (SCOTUS) just punted and said that the president lied his ass off to the public when stumping for this POS.

Either lied or was a fool, but one is no better than the other, no?

Hi,

I am baffled by this. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to deem a law constitutional or not? What gives them the right to "change" a law? Even if they say ok, you can't do it this way or that way, but you CAN do it this way - shouldn't the congress have to go back and pass a NEW LAW that rewords or amends it to do what the court says is constitutional? Does the Supreme Court have the right to change the law to a tax when it wasn't designed so originally?

Thanks,

Alan

But remember people, the court holds, or reverses and remands lower court decisions. It's not like they can specifically tell Congress "how you should have done it." If the law passes their litmus test, then they rule accordingly (hold or reverse the lower court decision). They don't coach by saying "well you done good this time, but next time try..."

At least, not in their formal opinions.

 

[ignerntbend]

If a person decides not to cooperate with the mandate; they'll no longer be fined, they'll "be taxed differently." Right?
They're not changing what the law does, they're changing what they call what the law does. Right?

 

[SMS]

If a person decides not to cooperate with the mandate; they'll no longer be fined, they'll "be taxed differently." Right?
They're not changing what the law does, they're changing what they call what the law does. Right?

That's my understanding...it's all going to be done through the tax code. If you don't have a valid, qualifying, insurance policy, you pay a higher tax. Mandate to some, tax to others.