- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,949
- Reaction score
- 1,331
That's a big part of why the decision is getting flak. The judge is setting himself up to get slapped in the dick.So why can a lower court rule against it again?
That's a big part of why the decision is getting flak. The judge is setting himself up to get slapped in the dick.So why can a lower court rule against it again?
That's a big part of why the decision is getting flak. The judge is setting himself up to get slapped in the dick.
What normally would happen in that case? Like if the Supreme Court eventually didn't choose to hear it, wouldn't it still revert to their past ruling compared to his ruling? Isn't this just him trying to bring it back up for double jeopardy and hope it's ruled different now that the justices changed?
So, he's trying to distinguish it. Ultimately, though, it is a ruling and it stands until overruled.What normally would happen in that case? Like if the Supreme Court eventually didn't choose to hear it, wouldn't it still revert to their past ruling compared to his ruling? Isn't this just him trying to bring it back up for double jeopardy and hope it's ruled different now that the justices changed?
So, he's trying to distinguish it. Ultimately, though, it is a ruling and it stands until overruled.
The Fifth Circuit can do that just fine.
If it were to go to SCOTUS, a likely outcome would be that they reverse without argument. They don't hear every case that they think is wrong. Sometimes they issue summary rulings upholding or vacating without hearing another argument on the same issue.
It seems like you might have been reading my first section and thinking that I was somehow proposing that as an argument instead of describing how despots (wannabe tyrants in government) try to argue to use taxation to control people. Because what you said afterward is the same thing I'm saying.You're conflating the issue. Neither side in the ACA debate argue against the plenary congressional power to tax. Congress can pass pretty much any tax they want, so long as it isn't a penalty for unlawful conduct. THAT is the issue, whether the individual mandate was a tax or a penalty for unlawful conduct. Scalia in his dissent didn't even try to argue that Congress doesn't have the power to tax, because they do, so Scalia's dissent was based on the argument that Congress didn't pass the IM as a tax and the SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to enact taxes by judicially rewriting legislation -- which is what Roberts effectively did when he decided that it was a tax and not a penalty. That's not Roberts' decision to make because tax power was given to the House specifically because the House is the body most accountable to the people.
Scalia's dissent tells you everything you need to know about the tax issue. Some excerpts that can shed some light on the tax/penalty issue far greater than I ever could:
And this is the final overhand right that destroys Roberts' majority opinion:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/#tab-opinion-1970524
But, even with that tortured wording (which Gruber admitted was tortured) their taxation wasn't what was necessary to subsidize the ACA, it was to punish people for not buying health insurance. They outright admitted this, which is what got them in trouble.If they can tax for medicare and tax for social security then they can tax to subsidize the ACA.
But, even with that tortured wording (which Gruber admitted was tortured) their taxation wasn't what was necessary to subsidize the ACA, it was to punish people for not buying health insurance. They outright admitted this, which is what got them in trouble.
The purpose of the money they charged for not having health insurance was to penalize the person. They said this themselves.I didn't read it. What was necessary to subsidize the ACA, if not taxes?
The purpose of the money they charged for not having health insurance was to penalize the person.
Simple, because it is unconstitutional. Simple as that.That's a big part of why the decision is getting flak. The judge is setting himself up to get slapped in the dick.
It should have never been allowed to stand in the first place. ALL laws that include a tax MUST start in the U.S. House of Representatives according to the U.S. Constitution.
Pro Tip: The Obamacare law started in the U.S. Senate. The Supreme Court ruled it was a tax. How they let it stand is mind boggling.
What if the Judge is setting national injunctions from being slapped down and this is his way of stopping the San Fran judges?That's a big part of why the decision is getting flak. The judge is setting himself up to get slapped in the dick.
The severability issue hasn’t been settled in any circumstance, much less the current circumstanceThat's a big part of why the decision is getting flak. The judge is setting himself up to get slapped in the dick.
Because John Roberts was a closeted liberal, and a series of rulings (including this one) exposed him. Libs like to legislate from the bench because they hate the fucking constitution.
Murcan healthcare, lol
As a response to a statement made by the OP in the original post itself......... in a thread about a conservative judge overruling the legislature.
I addressed that already. They are unconstitutional, but they can't muster enough public outrage since they are vices, in the same way that certain population groups get shafted by the government because they can't get enough voters on their behalf.Like alcohol and tobacco taxes?