Purple wrote:Judicial activism? Yeah... kind of.

Well, again, if the bill doesn't call it a tax, then it's pretty hard to see how a strict constructionist can flip it into a tax.

Does this mean President Obama increases taxes?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

You can't put the state/federal aside Danivon. That is the entire point of our system. States have a general police power. The Federal Government does not.

How about we think about it this way:

What is the fundamental difference in Massechussets between Romneycare and Obamacare?

I am yet again stunned at the way Americans can't discuss whether a policy is good or bad, without first asking who is doing it, so they can decide.

Republican or Democrat?
State or Federal?

I do get the constitutional issues. The SC has ruled on that, so it's done (had they ruled the other way, I'm sure you'd be saying something on these lines). So, is it possible to look at the policy itself?

The main objection was to the individual mandate. Romneycare had an individual mandate. The Supremes have upheld the individual mandate (while also tightening the commerce clause). So, why would Romney oppose the individual mandate, which was pretty fundamental to both plans?

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, again, if the bill doesn't call it a tax, then it's pretty hard to see how a strict constructionist can flip it into a tax.

You mean a strict 'literalist', not 'constructionist'. If something is just like a tax but simply isn't called such in a bill, it's still a tax. It could be called a 'tariff' or a 'duty' or a 'mandatory fee'...

And 'constructionalist' in the context of the Constitution should be strict to that, and also aware that since then language has changed and also that people are quite capable of using different words to mean the same things.

rickyp wrote:archduke

You can't put the state/federal aside Danivon. That is the entire point of our system. States have a general police power. The Federal Government does not.

They both have the power to tax, right?
Making Roberts interpretation of the penalty in ACAas a tax on those who do not insure themselves ... key.

"Interpretation" or "invention?"

In 2400 pages, Congress never saw fit to write the word "tax." Why? Maybe because it's not a tax?

What other "taxes" only apply to someone who doesn't do something?

For a change, answer the question

Dr Fate wrote:For example, the Federal government cannot/previously could not force someone to buy auto insurance.

They aren't forced to buy health insurance eitther. They are taxed to cover the potential costs of their failure to insure...

No, they are fined. "Tax" is a fiction created by the Solicitor General and accepted by Justice Roberts.

One thing about this ruling is that it will now be easier to sell the package during the election, because the ruling provides Obama with legitimate rebuttal to arguements like "forced to buy"...

I guess we'll see. i know this bill was so popular in dark Blue MA that it got Scott Brown elected. I'm sure it will gain in popularity now that we have such, uh, clarity from the Court.

Still, having to deal with constant misinformation like "beauracrats between your doctor and you", and "death panels" will continue.
He is on a winning streak though.... And the latest polls in the swing states reflect that...

Oh brother. To get those "swing state" numbers they had to include PA and another State or two that have not voted for a Republican in several cycles.

bbauska wrote:Does this mean President Obama increases taxes?

I see no way around that--the Supreme Court says so.

danivon wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

You can't put the state/federal aside Danivon. That is the entire point of our system. States have a general police power. The Federal Government does not.

How about we think about it this way:

What is the fundamental difference in Massechussets between Romneycare and Obamacare?

It won't change a thing. Our healthcare will continue to be sorry. We have few companies competing for business and there are holes you could drive a truck through. I know a working poor family where the wife has a preexisting condition. She is barely able to get up out of her wheelchair on occasion, but she receives no help from the State. So, is that what Obamacare will bring to the nation? You can survive and that's about it?

Woot!

So, is it possible to look at the policy itself?

As it unfolds, we will see it for the fiscal disaster it is designed to be. They made it look good with smoke and mirrors. For one example, is there a "doctor fix" in Obamacare?

No. And, that will add to the cost. That hasn't changed.

The number of "unexpected" costs will continue to climb.

The main objection was to the individual mandate. Romneycare had an individual mandate. The Supremes have upheld the individual mandate (while also tightening the commerce clause). So, why would Romney oppose the individual mandate, which was pretty fundamental to both plans?

He thinks it's unconstitutional. It's certainly not what Americans want. Show me a poll that supports the individual mandate.

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, again, if the bill doesn't call it a tax, then it's pretty hard to see how a strict constructionist can flip it into a tax.

You mean a strict 'literalist', not 'constructionist'. If something is just like a tax but simply isn't called such in a bill, it's still a tax. It could be called a 'tariff' or a 'duty' or a 'mandatory fee'...

But, it's none of those things.

No, I mean a "strict constructionist," meaning a jurist who looks at the Constitution and adheres to it. For a change, Kennedy had it right: the mandate is illegal and the whole bill should have gone down as a result. What Roberts did was what liberals always do, find a way around the clear meaning of the law. He did the Legislative Branch's job for it. That is activism.

Politically, here's the irony: it turns Romney into the populist. People don't like this law. Obama is going to tell people who have hated it for 2 years that "it's good for you."

Right.

Have some broccoli! It's good for you!

Doctor Fate wrote:

The main objection was to the individual mandate. Romneycare had an individual mandate. The Supremes have upheld the individual mandate (while also tightening the commerce clause). So, why would Romney oppose the individual mandate, which was pretty fundamental to both plans?

He thinks it's unconstitutional.

But apparently, he's wrong about that.

No, I mean a "strict constructionist," meaning a jurist who looks at the Constitution and adheres to it.

Yes, a literalist about the Constitution. Not the laws compared to it.

What Roberts did was what liberals always do, find a way around the clear meaning of the law. He did the Legislative Branch's job for it. That is activism.

And yet he's not been noted as a massive 'activist' much in the past. Or being a major liberal. I think you are indulging in post hoc reasoning.

Politically, here's the irony: it turns Romney into the populist. People don't like this law. Obama is going to tell people who have hated it for 2 years that "it's good for you."

But much of it hasn't started yet. People hate the idea of it. But it's not real yet, and should it become reality, people may change their minds. Not sure if that will happen over the next 6 months, but it could well do over the next 12 (I suspect it would take Romney more than a day)

And of course the more that Romney claims he's against the individual mandate, the more the Democrats will point out that he supported it when he had Executive power. I suppose the question is, can anyone really trust Romney to do what he promises to do?

danivon wrote:He thinks it's unconstitutional.

But apparently, he's wrong about that. [/quote]

I'll grant you that was the ruling. However, I suspect it won't move the needle on how the public feels about it. They've spent millions of government dollars telling us how great it is (Andy Williams commercials, etc.) and it has not become more popular.

Americans don't like being told what to do. Liberals love telling others what to do. That's the nature of Statism.

No, I mean a "strict constructionist," meaning a jurist who looks at the Constitution and adheres to it.

Yes, a literalist about the Constitution. Not the laws compared to it.

Right, and constitutionally, he did not have the right to do what he did today. He adjusted the law.

What Roberts did was what liberals always do, find a way around the clear meaning of the law. He did the Legislative Branch's job for it. That is activism.

And yet he's not been noted as a massive 'activist' much in the past. Or being a major liberal. I think you are indulging in post hoc reasoning.

Nope, just analyzing what he did. Like Souter, he was nominated by a fairly conservative guy who was duped.

Politically, here's the irony: it turns Romney into the populist. People don't like this law. Obama is going to tell people who have hated it for 2 years that "it's good for you."

But much of it hasn't started yet. People hate the idea of it. But it's not real yet, and should it become reality, people may change their minds. Not sure if that will happen over the next 6 months, but it could well do over the next 12 (I suspect it would take Romney more than a day)

Oh, I'm sure there may be some breathless polls in the next few days of "adults" that "prove" people now love Obamacare. I guess we'll see in November.

And of course the more that Romney claims he's against the individual mandate, the more the Democrats will point out that he supported it when he had Executive power. I suppose the question is, can anyone really trust Romney to do what he promises to do?

Again, while straining at gnats, you've swallowed the camel. There is a difference between the roles of State and Federal governments--one that, again, has eluded your grasp.

Doctor Fate wrote:"Tax" is a fiction created by the Solicitor General and accepted by Justice Roberts.

But all through the debate over the bill the Republicans were calling it a tax. If those same Republicans now try to claim it isn't they are going to look pretty foolish.

In case anyone would care to forego the politics of this and consider Roberts' opinion based on its merits, here is the relevant section, taken from a PDF of the entire opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with
respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be
upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli-
cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering
that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,
“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-
stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility
payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The
payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health
insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-
ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by
the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay-
ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But
the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un-
lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches
negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond
requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—
stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—
does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It
may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur-
ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174.
Pp. 35–40.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll grant you that was the ruling. However, I suspect it won't move the needle on how the public feels about it. They've spent millions of government dollars telling us how great it is (Andy Williams commercials, etc.) and it has not become more popular.

Sure, but the point is that Romney's opinion on whether it's constitutional is now rendered pretty much moot.

And yes, oddly, a government has spent money advertising a government programme.

Americans don't like being told what to do. Liberals love telling others what to do. That's the nature of Statism.

Sloganeering. bleh.

Right, and constitutionally, he did not have the right to do what he did today. He adjusted the law.

I think, actually, that 'he' (along with some other Justices) are entitled precisely to do that, because the Constitution sets the highest level of the judiciary the task of deciding whether or not a law is or is not Constitutional. 'He' also tightened up interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which I would think would be welcomed.

Nope, just analyzing what he did. Like Souter, he was nominated by a fairly conservative guy who was duped.

Actually, when he was being nominated, he made it clear that he did not have a 'strict' interpretation policy, saying that he did "not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document" during the confirmation hearings.

If anyone was duped into thinking he'd only be a 'strict constructionist' they duped themselves.

Oh, I'm sure there may be some breathless polls in the next few days of "adults" that "prove" people now love Obamacare. I guess we'll see in November.

To be honest, the polling doesn't interest me as much as the prospect that millions of people may remain out of the scope of decent healthcare in a nation that can easily afford it. Your interest here seems to be in which 'Team' wins the game in Nov.

And of course the more that Romney claims he's against the individual mandate, the more the Democrats will point out that he supported it when he had Executive power. I suppose the question is, can anyone really trust Romney to do what he promises to do?

Again, while straining at gnats, you've swallowed the camel. There is a difference between the roles of State and Federal governments--one that, again, has eluded your grasp.

I understand, I just care less about it than I do about the actual policies. He was in favour of individual mandates when he had the power to impose one, and did. It's now the case that a very similar individual mandate has been approved at a Federal level, and suddenly he doesn't agree?

You are right on one thing. Romney is certainly going populist. It's not a compliment.

danivon wrote:Actually, when he was being nominated, he made it clear that he did not have a 'strict' interpretation policy, saying that he did "not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document" during the confirmation hearings.

If anyone was duped into thinking he'd only be a 'strict constructionist' they duped themselves.

I could play "dueling quotes," but I'll pass.

Oh, I'm sure there may be some breathless polls in the next few days of "adults" that "prove" people now love Obamacare. I guess we'll see in November.

To be honest, the polling doesn't interest me as much as the prospect that millions of people may remain out of the scope of decent healthcare in a nation that can easily afford it.

Sloganeering. Bleh.

30 million people gain health insurance. We have a doctor shortage, specifically a primary care doctor, general practitioner, shortage. This bill does little, if anything, to alleviate that. Because of that shortage, most will still go to emergency rooms.

This bill will do very little to address any of the real problems. Denial because of preconditions? Great, except the "tax" will not cause a lot of folks to pay. Instead, they'll wait until they get sick, then sign up. Insurance companies will feel the pinch and rates will go up. In fact, almost every aspect of this bill guarantees the rates will go up.

Your interest here seems to be in which 'Team' wins the game in Nov.

Oh, pardon me. I seem to have precisely the same interest as the President has had since last summer.

This bill promises everything for nothing. Most grown ups understand that can't work, but not liberals, apparently. Read all the promises and tell me how they will be fulfilled, then I'll say, "Gee, what a fine bill this is." Until then, I'll keep hoping the bill remains unpopular.

Again, while straining at gnats, you've swallowed the camel. There is a difference between the roles of State and Federal governments--one that, again, has eluded your grasp.

I understand, I just care less about it than I do about the actual policies. He was in favour of individual mandates when he had the power to impose one, and did. It's now the case that a very similar individual mandate has been approved at a Federal level, and suddenly he doesn't agree?

He did not "impose" one. He actually worked across the aisle--something this President is ideologically prevented from doing.

Again, this is a Constitutional issue that you don't understand. There is a difference in authority between States and the Federal government. The Federal government does not issue marriage licenses. The State governments do not have the right to regulate interstate commerce. There are things a State cannot do that the Feds can and vice-versa. Romney, and upwards of 60% of Americans, don't believe the Feds can force you to buy something. That the Court invented a way does not mean it is right. The Court can reverse field--and it might after Ginsberg retires.

You are right on one thing. Romney is certainly going populist. It's not a compliment.

That's fine. He's not the jackass who declared a depression. He's also not the one lying about his opponent on an hourly basis. Those two individuals, the jester and the liar, would be your heroes: Biden and Obama.

I think it's healthy that this will be an issue for the electorate to consider in November.

Ray Jay. It probably is the best way, to be honest. It was a political football in Congress in the 90s, and again in the 00s. And it seems that trying to make it a constitutional football with the courts has failed.

Of course, I can't see it being a particularly highbrow debate. If if the madness on t'internet today is an example (and DF is tame compared to some of the hotheads out there), there's going to be a lot of hot air. And that's just from one side.

of course, I'm not sure it will be properly decided. What if Obama wins narrowly and has a House and Congress against him? What does that say is the will of the people?

.

If those same Republicans now try to claim it isn't a tax they are going to look pretty foolish

Almost as foolish as stating that the Supreme Court ruling was unconstitutional?
Thats the whole point of the ruling, to define the constitutionality of the law...
And they've now settled the arguement. (star decisis is that right?)

Obama care is still pretty crappy. Perhaps the debate can now move past the constitutional debate to improvements?