Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Vox Populi | Main | Let's Tax The Servers Here »

June 28, 2012

Comments

Chubby

((They are framing it as Obama siccing the IRS on Americans.))

ha!

Sara

A $400 billion tax hike over next ten years!!!!

$400 Billion.

MarkO

We're all dead in the long run.

Chubby

the hiring of all those IRS collectors, and the fact that that wasn't loudly reported always bothered me. I guess it will get reported now.

Janet

At Drudge -
HOUSE GOP INSTANTLY ANNOUNCES REPEAL VOTE FOR WEEK OF JULY 9...

Why didn't they do this immediately? Why does the GOP always wait around? The libs forge ahead & bury themselves in like chiggers & we never get rid of their crap. They dig in & then move the battle to the courts....where years later some minute point is won by Conservatives, but it is too late.

NK

Cboldt@11:44-- I prefer to be and optimist and believe that the SCOTUS has taken away the ability of the Congress to use the Commerce Clause to disguise taxes; and that is significant because Americans don't ever agree to be overtaxed. Do rich Libs ever overpay their taxes? NEVER.

C.R.

Since the House will be holding a repeal vote July 11, everyone up for re-election will be on record (perhaps twice) right before November. Excellent.

MarkO

Janet, it's the July 4th holiday. Everyone needs time away from the hard work of taxing and spending.

daddy

Betsy McCaughy on FOX says she is not surprised. She said regardless of what the politicians said about it not being a Tax, the actual 2,700 pages was a Tax and the Supreme's recognized that it was a Tax per the actual letter of the Law, regardless of what the Politicians said, and the Supreme's had to rule that way.

I think the whole thing is bullshit. Maybe when I read all your comments I'll come around to understanding the logic of Robert's, ruling but at the moment it seems to me he got it it exactly backward.

Chubby

are you planning on exiting the scene on November 7, MarkO? :)

NK

Janet-- July 9th vote? probably requirements of House procedures. More importantly. members can go home now on July 4th break and explain to voters why they will vote to repeal-- Repeal a $400B tax on workers. Good politics.

MarkO

Ann Coulter brought this up, but it is intersting that Roberts found a tax, but no one that triggers the anti-injunction statue.

While I would not find this to be a tax and would have been offended by the argument, it is not necessarily unreasonable so to do. I think it's wrong, but not like giving trees standing to sue.

Chubby

Janet, they have a lot more political capital now that it is clear it is a tax. Before the libbies would have scoffed at them and called them liars for calling it a tax. No more can do.

Jack is Back!

Two things come to mind for me:

1) Senators Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Joe Biden all voted NOT to confirm CJ Roberts and,

2) Most Tea Party types and most of us here at JOM I believe have existing health insurance of one form or another, so gloating by the trolls really is sort of vapid.

The most affected by this ruling are the young, the poor, the indigent, the illegal immigrant, middle class families trying to save a buck, etc. They now get to pay a tax that they don't have the capability or wherewithal to do and 18,000 new IRS agents will lay in wait in their tactical gear to SWAT them to the courthouse.

This may have been the most thought out, political rope-a-dope ever conceived and after all the dust has settled we may end up thanking John Roberts for being clever by more than half. I don't believe the trolls here have quite recognized the subtle election year political finesse by Roberts. Stop gloating and start thinking.

BB Key

Romney spokesperson says they got $300,000.00 in donations in the first hour after the decsion :)

derwill

The mandate was always a tax--they just called it a "mandate" because the word TAX is so toxic to the American voter that they knew they wouldn't even get enough of their own party to vote for the bill otherwise.

From now until November, every time Romney opens his mouth he needs to talk about how Obama has imposed the biggest TAX hike in history on the poor and middle class, and unless Obama is defeated, starting in 2014, the poor and middle class will be subject to the biggest TAX HIKE in history. Same for those republicans running for congress, keep harping on how their opponent voted for biggest TAX hike on the poor and middle class in history. Make Obama and the Dems own this thing now as a tax hike on the poor and middle class and see how they do come November.

MarkO

Chubby, I'll stay both in the USA and on JOM irrespective of the election. I think Romney will be elected, but I also thought the mandate was an impermissible extention of the Commere Clause. What? it was?

Rick Ballard

Janet,

The GOP House repealed it in January, 2011.

There were problems moving the repeal in the Senate. Some resistance from the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would have had to be overcome as well.

It would have been rather difficult for Boehner to have moved more rapidly on repeal, given he didn't become Speaker until January 2011.

Melinda Romanoff

JiB-

Current insurance will be rendered unaffordable with the defection of just one employee. It forces single payer within a very short period of time.

Bond market has voted in favor of further recession, stocks to soon follow.

MarkO

TEA PARTY TIME.

cajunkate


DOT "as far as I know...any other bill"

Not according to Jim Geraghty
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/304259/there-now-only-one-way-stop-obamacare-november

Porchlight

Where Congress used to justify its laws as being enabled by the Commerce Clause, now they can just switch to enabling them via the taxing power.

But they have always been able to enable them via the taxing power. It's just that taxes are political losers, so they couldn't get them passed that way and instead would hide under the Commerce Clause.

This opinion (as I understand it) provides an explicit check on stretching the Commerce Clause.

Sue

Romney is not using the word tax in his speech. He is still calling it Obamacare.

Jim Ryan

cbolt, it's not that the form of government has changed; it's that the virtue of the people eroded. The SCOTUS is appointed indirectly by that people. We still have a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The SCOTUS of such a system simply cannot withstand the force of such a degenerate people. Constitutional republic is a form of government which requires a more virtuous people. It's very delicate in that regard - brittle, fragile in that regard. The result looks like the system has degenerated into democracy, but that is just because that's what a constitutional republic with a vicious people looks like.

The system is still intact. If the people awaken from their stupor quickly and install more sensible representatives, they can right the ship. The SCOTUS won't be able to stop them if they control Congress and the POTUS and begin to remove the enormous and diseased components of the federal government.

daddy

Mitt Romney:

On my first day if elected President I will act to repeal ObamaCare.

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. They did not say it is good policy or a good Law.

Obamacare is bad Law. it raises Taxes by 500 billion dollars. It cuts medicare by 500 billion dollars. It raises the debt by trillions.
It is a job killer. It puts the Fed Govt in betwwen the people and their doctor.

Now is the time for people to choose whether they want a bigger Govt or return to a time where they get to make their own choices. If we want to get rid of Obamacare we have to replace President Obamacare. If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for our future and out grandkids we must replace Obama. Help us. Help is replace President Obama.

Thank you very much.

NK

JiB@11:53-- I agree entirely. I know I'm repeating myself, but in the decision-- ONE MAN -- Don Giovanni Roberto has: 1. hung a $400B tax on uninsured workers around Obama's neck; 2. limited the reach of the Commerce Clause by holding that CC does not give Congress the power to do this; 3. Strengthened federalism by getting 7 Justices to rule Congress can't blackmail States (after Obamacare is repealed that will long-term be the most significant ruling, IMO) and 4. Most importantly for Don Roberto, as CJ, he can say the SCOTUS stayed out of politics. Forza Don Giovanni, Forza.

AliceH

Wonder what this will do to the CBO Baselines used in Ryan's et al Budget projections? Would like to see some of the bar graphs on that.

pagar

"Has the Repub Party ever been willing to stand up and fight?"

I believe we have Republicans who will stand up and fight, such as Sarah Palin and Col Allen West. We need to find more.

There are only two choices for Nov. One can vote for the Democrats, who are 100% (IMO) committed to turning this country into a banana republic: or one can vote for a Republican and give America a chance.
If Democrats take the lead in Nov there is nothing that can be done to save America, IMO.

Jim Ryan

Cuccinelli email blast: "This is a dark day"

No, it isn't. The last eighty years of government bloat have been a dark time. Today's SCOTUS decision doesn't matter.

Jack is Back!

Mel,

My point is election year politics has taken a new direction. Before the Senate would have been the stumbling block to repeal. This changes that dynamic. Repeal is now more doable and possible since it makes the Dems have to run on imposing this tax on the poor and middle class. You now have the possibility of a cloture proof Senate and a heavy right-side House. It doesn't change anything now until 2014.

I have said since day one that this hurts the Dems and Obama more if upheld than having the albatross removed from their neck. Now they have to wear it exposed to everyone.

Its a tax and everyone will now know it.

James D.

"The most affected by this ruling are the young, the poor, the indigent, the illegal immigrant, middle class families trying to save a buck, etc. They now get to pay a tax that they don't have the capability or wherewithal to do and 18,000 new IRS agents will lay in wait in their tactical gear to SWAT them to the courthouse."

Maybe. And maybe there'll be hundreds of special waivers to excuse just enough of them from the tax to produce a 50%+1 Dem voting majority, and our elected Reps in the house and senate will do not a damn thing about it.

I have no optimism at all at this point. Roberts can go to hell; the whole damn SC can, as far as I'm concerned.

Threadkiller

Thanks NK.

Janet

Don't worry little lib! They're embedded in our government (state, local, & fed.), education system, courts, NGOs, entertainment world, & naturally in our MFM! Keep on truckin'...we've got ya covered!

Threadkiller

Obama to speak at 12:15 pm eastern.

Any bets on how late he will be?

Porchlight

Dem defections will be a major risk when repeal comes down to a vote. They are not afraid of Obama like they were the first time around.

Sara

Seniors get screwed and anyone but millionaires get screwed.

Ignatz

--Ig-- ArticleI, Clause 1, gives Congress the power to impose single payer and pay for it via a tax (now under the 16th Amendment). That is a fact.--

No it isn't. The framers gave the feds power to nationalize all economic activity? That's news to me and would seem to obviate the need for a commerce clause at all.
There may be no practical limit on their power to tax but there certainly is, or at least was originally, on every other aspect of their power.
This decision chips away substantially at those limits and the sophistry that Roberts used to get there is precisely the kind of practical political crap that never ends well when judges think their job is something beyond applying or interpreting the law.

NK

JamesD said: "Maybe. And maybe there'll be hundreds of special waivers to excuse just enough of them from the tax to produce a 50%+1 Dem voting majority" That's exactly what CHOOMBama will try to do this summer and Fall. Won't work-- the 54% of likely voters who already hate Obamacare won't fall for that. CHOOMBama will be out of a job, and many Senate Dems will gladly vote for repeal in 2013.

Porchlight

And maybe there'll be hundreds of special waivers to excuse just enough of them from the tax to produce a 50%+1 Dem voting majority

They can try that route, but they can't get to 50+1 on that road. It will anger more voters than it cajoles.

Chants

So. The most progressive president ever is responsible for the most regressive tax, ever.

Porchlight

So. The most progressive president ever is responsible for the most regressive tax, ever.

Make this a bumper sticker.

Enlightened

"Romney is not using the word tax in his speech. He is still calling it Obamacare."

Because if he calls it a tax - they will swat him repeatedly with the Romneycare tax bat.

No wonder the libs pushed for Romney.

We.Are.So.Screwed.

Sara

No wonder the libs pushed for Romney.

WTF are you talking about. This is just a really really stupid statement.

Chubby

the rapid response of the Repubs makes me wonder if they were tipped off in advance

Captain Hate

I still think strategically the wind is at our backs. Boehner scheduled a vote per Rick's suggestion and it will put everybody's neck on the line. We may even get more than 60 Senators out of this especially if that ambulatory litter box in the Senate stonewalls a vote.

Sara

the rapid response of the Repubs makes me wonder if they were tipped off in advance

How 'bout they already had several contingencies in place depending on the ruling.

Sue

This is just a really really stupid statement.

You're such a bitch.

Ignatz

And I'd like to disagree quite forcefully with the idea that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is a tax. It is not.
If I do not comply with a government order I am not taxed, I am fined or penalized.
The IRS does not impose additional taxes if we don't comply with tax laws they penalize us.
If I don't pay the road fee when hauling logs on a forest service road I'm not taxed, I'm assessed a penalty.
If it really was a tax the Anti Injunction Act would have applied, hence Roberts' sophistry.
It would have been much more honest had they simply said congress has the power under the commerce clause. It would have been legally and intellectually indefensible but at least it would have been a naked power grab and would have drawn a much clearer line between the government and the governed.

Enlightened

"WTF are you talking about. This is just a really really stupid statement"

Oh really? AYFKM? You are saying Romneycare did not raise taxes?

You are saying the left will not go back and use that against Romney?

For once I suggest you understand that Romney is NOT PERFECT. And in this case the tax comparison is patently obvious.


Rocco

Since the house didn't vote for this tax, isn't this taxation without representation? Perhaps that should be the new battle cry for the Tea Party.

NK

Ig-- I'm afraid I am right. Look at Youngstown Steel, NO JUSTICE of SCOTUS challenged the fact that Congress can seize private property for Congressional war making or the general welfare power-- of course the 5th Amendment requires that the property owner be compensated. Truman lost because the POTUS has no such inherent power, even for national security. Youngstown Steel was the beginning of the climb down from the Imperial POTUS that FDR created. BUT the Court held unamimously that the Congress can tax and spend for war making or the general welfare-- virtually to any extent, so long as private property rights are compensated. That's our constitutional system.

Jane

Stop gloating and start thinking.

Oh let em gloat. They don't know how to think.

Ignatz

--that ambulatory litter box in the Senate--

LOL, Captain.

daddy

Dennis Prager;

So what is the story with Robert's?

Prager sez his personal theory is that Robert's wants the Supreme court to retain respect with the American people.

He thinks Robert's also believes that Congress should be able to pass the laws they want to pass.

Prager thinks Roberts did a disservice to the country.

"This is a terrible decision and a frightening thought. This is more frightening than ocean levels rising in 60 years. We can deal with ocean levels rising, we cannot deal with a weaker America."

SWarren

So now it seems that the government has the power to impose just about anything on us and we must comply or else pay a tax enforced by the IRS knocking on our door.

Oh Liberty, where hath thou gone.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I don't believe John Roberts is a squish. He was picked as Chief because he was the best SCOTUS advocate of his generation, and was a conservative with Federalist credentials. Had he not made this call, we would have had a 5/4 ideological opinion. If you doubt me, read the Ginsburg dissent.

Obama would have had a real hobby horse to run against, and would have pushed to demonize the current make up of the court. FDR provided the template, and a demagogue like ElJefe would have happily used the Court as the squirrel to chase while the economy circled the drain. Now he and Pelosi and Reid have a real political health care mess on their hands to go along with a tanking economy.

harrjf

"There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

This is the fatal blow to Obama. An albatross to hang around his neck. John Roberts is a patriot. He has ensured a future for America.

James D.

Porch, NK, I wish I could be as optimistic about you about that.

I really hope you're right.

But even if you are, we're still screwed. Best case, Romney wins, we get additional seats in the House and 60 in the Senate. They actually manage to repeal this monstrosity. Then what?

What'll happen to the thousands of IRS agents already hired to deal with ACA? They won't be laid off - and you can bet the IRS (and the bureaucrats Zero will have burrowed into it) will find something horrible to do with them - we'll never be rid of them.

And how resolute will Romney and our hypothetical 60-seate Senate be to the cries of the millions of 25 year olds "cruelly cut off" from health insurance upon repeal, or the endless progression of victims the MSM will treat us to who we'll be "throwing to the wolves?"

jimmyk

Why does the SC do Congress's work for it? What they passed was unconstitutional. It's not the SC's place to devise a workaround.

Now Congress can dispense with the boring task of figuring out what the Constitution allows. Just pass something and there are nine geniuses who will figure out how to make it constitutional.

dublindave

Barry's selling the heck out of the individual provisions in the ACA.....we just got our new November strategy.....i'm looking forward to Romney going up against him on this arguement.

Rom bot is stuck now because he's already stated that he's going to replace the majority of popular provisions in Obamacare.

The base doesn't want them replaced,they want them repealed,fuck you go away poor people.


Not even multpiple mitt can spin his way out of this conundrum.

Danube of Thought

"Kagan should have been challenged."

No one can do so. She either recuses herself or she stays.

James D.

harrjf,

So Obama is Lord Foul? Or maybe just Drool Rockworm?

NK

Last Point from me-- why did the Dems pass Obamacare as written? The Maoist leaders of the Dems -- Bam, Hillary, Nancy, Harry all of them want Single Payer. They have the tax and spend constitutional power to adopt SP-- why didn't they? Because they don't have the votes to tax and spend to take over healthcare-- hence the Obamacare mandate nonsense. The SCOTUS doesn't change that political fact-- IMO 20-40 House Dems will now vote to repeal Obamacare in July, expressing shock that it's a tax. In January, a bunch of Dem Senators will do likewise.

Ignatz

--Ig-- I'm afraid I am right. Look at Youngstown Steel--

No, you said Article one of the constitution gave them the power.
Youngstown prohibited Truman from seizing private property without congressional approval.
It did not assert congress has unlimited power to give him approval to nationalize entire industries, especially in peace time.
And any power SCOTUS does grant is not automatically power contained within the Constitution. Roe certainly granted powers to the Feds at the states expense which is extra constitutional, as did Lawrence, IMO.

Ranger

BTW, I think one key part everyone need to look closely at is the Medicaid part. That was a huge part of "insuring everyone" by forcing states to expand Medicaid eligability. By letting states simly opt out of the expansion process, this has essentially extended the Obama Health Care Tax dramaticly.

That, in a very real sense, guts a huge portion of Obamacare.

NK

Drunkard says: "The base doesn't want them replaced,they want them repealed,fuck you go away poor people." FU-- but at least we won't tax you!

bgates

Here's my predicted Dem spin:

"The most important thing here is that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Second, I think this demonstrates that the arguments that it was supposedly unconstitutional were made in bad faith, when even George Bush's choice of Chief Justice, John Roberts, agreed with essentially every aspect of my administration's arguments."

"The Republican Party is already claiming that the act has somehow become some kind of tax. Some of them are even saying it's the largest one ever. Now, it's true that the Court's majority opinion uses the word 'tax' in the middle of a long technical discussion of why the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. But when Americans use the word 'tax', they think of 'money that has to be paid to the government, no matter what'. Certainly that's how I use the word. But this - is a parking ticket a tax? It's money that gets paid to the government, but you don't want a parking ticket, don't park in front of a fire hydrant. Don't park in a handicapped space. Don't - don't make a selfish choice that will burden someone else."

"And that's all we're saying here. Don't make the selfish choice. Get health insurance. I mean - here's a guaranteed legal 'tax dodge', straight from the President of the United States: if you don't want to pay anything to the government because of the Affordable Care Act, get health insurance. Does that sound like a tax?"

"Let's look at who this affects. First are a small number of rich people who want to keep more money. We're telling them, "get health insurance". They'll be better off for having it, the rest of us will be better off for not subsidizing them when they inevitably need medical care, and - nobody pays a tax."

"Then the Republicans will claim that they're really concerned about people who can't afford health insurance. I mean, you can't make this up. Well, we have provisions to help make insurance affordable for those people. It's right there in the name, 'the Affordable Care Act'. Now the Republicans will want to turn around and say we didn't go far enough. The Democratic Party has been trying to ensure health care for all Americans since 1946, I was the first one to be able to do it, Republicans have fought us every step of the way, but now they want to say the problem is health insurance is still unaffordable for the poor. To that I say, if they want to join us in finding ways to raise revenue to alleviate that supposed problem and guarantee to the satisfaction of their new-found concern for the poor that all Americans can afford health insurance, we're ready to make a bipartisan push for that."

Sara

For once I suggest you understand that Romney is NOT PERFECT. And in this case the tax comparison is patently obvious.

I am saying you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And that I'm sick to death of the lies about Romney. Go play with the libs because it is their talking points you are spouting.

Romney hates ACA and will repeal it if the Congress fucks it up again.

I don't think anyone is perfect, least of all a presidential candidate, Romney or otherwise. That is your second stupid statement. I do think that Romney is your best hope to save us from going full blown commie.

Jack is Back!

daddy,

But we as a country have been getting weaker and weaker with each social and political change for the last 100+ years. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started the ball rolling. Coolidge parked it for a time but the damn thing called Progressivism really took off under the other Roosevelt. Then Reagan did his best but to no avail.

It is even infecting the most stable of all conservative institutions - the military. Our service acadamies are totally PC and even the instructors and professors there are becoming more like their civilian peers - liberal to leftwing.

No, the only hope is a new revolution. The Tea Party started one but you'll need something truly humongous to beat back what has 100+ years of history behind it. There is so much to be undone, no single POTUS or Congress can do it. This will take generations to undo.

Danube of Thought

Geraghty is correct, cajunkate, because there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you were to introduce a "bill to repeal the Obamacare Tax," you would need 60 votes for cloture. If the repeal is included as part of a budget bill, a filibuster is not allowed, and 51 votes will suffice.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

It has been hornbook constitutional law from as far back as I can remember that SCOTUS will be construe Acts of Congress so as to avoid declaring them unconstitutional. Roberts applied that doctrine to reach his result.

Rick Ballard

It won't take a 60 seat majority in the Senate with BOzo gone. I'd put 53 as a lower limit. The Chicago politburo has already lost it's financial hammer, as we will see when the Holder contempt citation is passed.

There are 20 Dem Senate seats to defend in '14 and political survival (plus minority status) guarantees the votes necessary for cloture on the repeal act.

Ignatz

--Had he not made this call, we would have had a 5/4 ideological opinion. If you doubt me, read the Ginsburg dissent.

Obama would have had a real hobby horse to run against, and would have pushed to demonize the current make up of the court.--

I've been on the receiving end of judges and lawyers deciding they should 'make calls' and avoid strictly applying the law. There's always some expeditious reason for doing so but the net result is less law and order and an advantage to those who game the system at the expense of those who abide by the law.
The cumulative effect of judges going beyond strictly applying the law is a nation of men not laws. No thanks.

NK

"Youngstown prohibited Truman from seizing private property without congressional approval." That was my point, If Congress adopted a Bill to authorize Truman to seize steel mills and appropriated the money to compensate the Mill Owners, seizure would have been constitutional under Article I (1) and the 5th Amendment. What else can I say.

Captain Hate

I defer to my friend Jim Rhoads on all things legal, having broken bread (or whatever we had at Paneras) with him; and rescind my comparison of Roberts to *hack* Souter *spit*.

Melinda Romanoff

BREAKING!!!

Holder releases new statement: Fast And Furious was a tax.

AoS.

Sorry, some humor was needed here.

Ignatz

--That was my point, If Congress adopted a Bill to authorize Truman to seize steel mills and appropriated the money to compensate the Mill Owners, seizure would have been constitutional under Article I (1) and the 5th Amendment. What else can I say.--

Do we need google lawyer TK to explain dicta?
There is to my knowledge no ruling giving congress the powers you describe. It's not in Youngstown that I know of. If there is cite the language.
Are you arguing that eminent domain is unlimited and gives the Feds the power to seize and run indefinitely entire industries or even the entire economy in both war and peacetime? If so cite that authority and tell everyone that Kelo is the least of our worries.

Publius of Idaho

A little help from the contract lawyers here, please.

1. A health insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured.

2. If the insured is coerced, or threatened, into entering a one-sided bargain, according to UCC, Sec. 2-302, the contract is considered a unconscionable contract and therefore unenforceable.

3. The alternative to entering into a mandated health insurance policy is to be assessed a penalty tax.

4. Therefore, why is the mandate to purchase health insurance under the penalty of taxation not a breach of contract law?

Ignatz

--4. Therefore, why is the mandate to purchase health insurance under the penalty of taxation not a breach of contract law?--

What makes you think contract law would fair any better?

Porchlight

Publius, I would guess because under your 2, the bargain is not one-sided. The insured is still receiving insurance in return for his payment.

Stephanie

Can we sue to negate it for fraud?

dublindave

"FU-- but at least we won't tax you!"


No,we'll just let you die in agony.

Anyway,every social programme is a tax.That bogey man will play well for the right wing base, but for the rest of America, taking on Healthcare AGAIN after a Republican Supreme Court upheld it and during a economic crisis with rising unemployment .....it's over,move on,beating a dead horse,where's me whiskey.

Jane

Would you guys please move to the new threads and while you are at it tell me what time the Holder vote is happening?

kave

...the rapid response of the Repubs makes me wonder if they were tipped off in advance

I don't know, like it or not it looks like Dudu had a fairly accurate source of information.
Are we to believe he has sources but O and the Repubs don't?

hit and run

James:

What'll happen to the thousands of IRS agents already hired to deal with ACA?

Have they already been hired?

Feb 2012:

The Obama administration is asking Congress for a nearly $1 billion budget increase for the IRS, a move that would allow the agency to hire thousands more employees. ... The request is an attempt to restore money to the IRS budget that was cut in 2011. ... The National Treasury Employees Union estimated the increase would allow for 4,000 more employees to be hired.

But that wasn't necessarily specific to ObamaCare, and I don't see anything more recent than that.

Here's a March 2010 article saying Republicans claim that thousands would need to be hired.

I don't see any articles (in the 30 second google I attempted) documenting that the hires have already taken place. Have they? Honestly looking for a good source for that.

Publius of Idaho

Porchlight,

It is one-sided because the insured is coerced into buying the policy under the threat of being taxed. It is agreement entered into under duress.

Melinda Romanoff

Dumb question here.

Has not Roberts handed over the roadmap for a "proper" route of appeal?

daddy

Has anyone yet considered what "precedence", what "Umbra's," what "penumbras" this establishes for the creative Judicial mind in future rulings?

Have not played catch-up yet on the threads, so I am still of the opinion that John Robert's made a horrible decision and that this is a disastrous decision for America.

dublindave

God,Nancy Pelosi is on selling ACA to women....she broke off and thanked Ted Kennedy for 'societies unfinished business' when tears began falling down her face.....not often moved, but that got to me....I wanted to reach out and hug her and thank her for being such a strong powerful liberal women......well Nancy,the dream has been acheived.......God bless us all.God bless you,President Obama and Chief justice John Roberts.


Great day to be a Democrat.


Wasn't there something about Eric somebody or someone being contempted or somethin..lmao.????

Publius of Idaho

Ignatz,

If you are saying that we can throw contract law, along with bankruptcy law, into the dustbin of history under this administration, I'll have to agree with you.

Porchlight

Publius,

Your number 2 says:

2. If the insured is coerced, or threatened, into entering a one-sided bargain, according to UCC, Sec. 2-302, the contract is considered a unconscionable contract and therefore unenforceable.

If the sole problem is coercion, what is the need for the qualifier "one-sided"?

Mind you, I don't like the coercion any more than you do. But under a straight reading of that language it seems to me that both coercion *and* one-sidedness need to be present for the contract to be considered unconscionable under the above rule.

Stephanie

Since people can't read a map anymore (how antiquated!) thanks to reliance on GPS (who needs old fashioned learning like multiplication tables, etc), exactly what is that proper route of appeal? Mel?

squaredance

Told ya.

(Oh and it will never be repealed--what nonsense.)

Charlie (Colorado)

Not to excuse Roberts IN ANY WAY, but Kagan should have been challenged.

By whom?

Sue

daddy,

I'm with you. It was a horrible decision.

jimmyk

It has been hornbook constitutional law from as far back as I can remember that SCOTUS will be construe Acts of Congress so as to avoid declaring them unconstitutional.

They've done more than "construe," in my opinion. If this involved a tax it should have been phrased as such and originated in the House, per the Constitution.

Enlightened

"That is your second stupid statement."

1.Mitt Romney increased taxes the moment he signed RomneyCare. RomneyCare increased net government spending. That in itself is an increase in the tax burden. All that remains to be determined is who will pay for that added spending and when they will pay it. The fact that the incidence of that added tax burden fell after Romney left office does not mean that’s when the added tax burden was created.
2.Mitt Romney has raised taxes on as many people as Barack Obama has. Half of RomneyCare’s new spending was financed by the federal government through the Medicaid program, which is financed through federal taxes, which fall on taxpayers in all 50 states. That means that when Romney financed half of RomneyCare’s new spending by pulling down more federal Medicaid dollars, he increased taxes on residents of all 50 states.
3.RomneyCare was born of, and expanded, a corrupt scheme by Massachusetts politicians to tax residents of all 50 states. What motivated Romney to enact RomneyCare, as former Romney/Obama adviser Jonathan Gruber explains here, was the widespread desire (within Massachusetts) to hang on to $385 million of federal Medicaid money that Massachusetts had secured using one of Medicaid’s notorious and fraudulent “provider tax” scams. In other words, the whole purpose of RomneyCare was to enable Massachusetts to hold on to $385 million that it received by defrauding and taxing residents of other states. And of course, Romney/RomneyCare caused the tax burden that Massachusetts effectively imposes on non-Massachusetts residents to grow.

Sue was right - what a bitch. It would be astonishingly stupid to disregard Romneycare versus Obamacare.

Charlie (Colorado)

Why didn't they do this immediately?

Yeah, I mean golly, it took them maybe 20 minutes.

Publius of Idaho

Porchlight,

You are right. There was not the need for the qualifier. I included it because it was used in my reference to contract law from Law Dictionary, 2nd ed. by Steven H. Gifis.

Janet

Congress can repeal Obamacare like they stopped funding NPR & PBS.
....really, they can't even shut down payments to a lousy radio station.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame