The Death Knell Has Likely Sounded for America

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Actually, the distinction is important here. While SCOTUS has established ample precedent for legislating from the bench, they stepped over the line here. This time they wrote a tax bill, and we all know that tax bills must originate in the House.

I think SCOTUS needs to review its own work, and find its legislation in this instance unconstitutional.

Congress imposed the tax regardless of what they called it. SCOTUS merely said that they had the right to do so.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Tom

If it is a tax, the bill is unconstitutional.

How so?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But they are "elected" by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate. An awful lot of politics is involved in that process, Mr. Mosty. Pull your head out of the drain pipe already! The SC is most certainly subject to the "vagaries of political" IDEOLOGY. What are the odds, do you think, that BO will appoint a moderate to the court, let alone a conservative? When presidents choose SC candidates, the first thing they want to know is what is that person's political bent. If they're leaning too far in the opposite direction of the president, they will not get nominated.

Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That means that 101 people are involved in the process. That does not include those who advise the Senate and those who suggest nominees. We must assume-although not always accurately-that these people are knowledgeable. We could not assume this if the justices were elected by popular vote. In fact, we the voters, do select the members of the court through our elected representatives.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Congress imposed the tax regardless of what they called it. SCOTUS merely said that they had the right to do so.

But Congress denied they did!

But of course, the SC, consisted of at least 5 psychics who knew the dark heart of Congress and that it was talking out of both sides of its mouth, right?

Boxcar
P.S. Oh wait...I know what happened. The SC actually read those gazillion pages and saw the word "tax" in there somewhere, right?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That means that 101 people are involved in the process. That does not include those who advise the Senate and those who suggest nominees. We must assume-although not always accurately-that these people are knowledgeable. We could not assume this if the justices were elected by popular vote. In fact, we the voters, do select the members of the court through our elected representatives.

That means 101 POLITICIANS with political ideologies and agendas are involved in the process. Further, these 101 are totally knowledgeable and accurate on what kind of justice they want on the court to represent their ideologies and agendas.

Thanks for clearing all that up for us.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Congress imposed the tax regardless of what they called it. SCOTUS merely said that they had the right to do so.

You are scrambling around like a cat trying to bury poop on a frozen pond in a vain attempt to avoid reality.

Congress went to great lengths to not use the word tax in the bill because a new tax was politically unacceptable, even to the Democratic base. Administration lawyers argued strenuously before the Court that it was not a tax.

But SCOTUS said that Congress didn't have any authority to levy a penalty, but they could impose a tax, so let's just call it a tax and we will call it constitutional and we will all live happily ever after.

And that is what is called legislating from the bench. They did not vote the law up or down, they changed it.

[hcap]

Pretty good analysis of where Scalia got his originalism
Some editorializing.


[YT="Roots"]/kWmFZ7aYfaQ[/YT]

[Fager Fan]

Just WOW that Obama isn't attending his funeral. The last who died in office had his funeral not only attended by Bush but eulogized by Bush. Previously, we have to go back to 1954 or something and I don't know what happened there.

WH spokesman can't give a reason why Obama can't attend, so there's no important scheduling conflict that requires Obama to not attend.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Just WOW that Obama isn't attending his funeral. The last who died in office had his funeral not only attended by Bush but eulogized by Bush. Previously, we have to go back to 1954 or something and I don't know what happened there.

WH spokesman can't give a reason why Obama can't attend, so there's no important scheduling conflict that requires Obama to not attend.

I have a brother with special needs (aspergers). He's intelligent enough, but because all the wires aren't connected correctly (lack of a better way to explain it) he sometimes can't reason well. He's sees the world the way it is in his own mind and can't adjust to reality. After decades of being in the company of someone like this, you eventually learn to cut certain conversations short to avoid conflict because the discussion will be fruitless. You allow him to babble away until he's done and pay no attention to him. That's the way we should all treat Obama. He's utterly clueless in every area of his responsibility. There' no point in having the conversation. Let him babble away and say whatever he wants, but block all the damaging policies until he's gone.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Just WOW that Obama isn't attending his funeral. The last who died in office had his funeral not only attended by Bush but eulogized by Bush. Previously, we have to go back to 1954 or something and I don't know what happened there.

WH spokesman can't give a reason why Obama can't attend, so there's no important scheduling conflict that requires Obama to not attend.

So what? President Obama and the First Lady will be going to the Supreme Court of Friday to pay their respects in that more private setting.

If Obama had chosen to attend the funeral, you would have been calling him a hypocrite. The right wing blogosphere would have been complaining about how he was a narcissist using the occasion to draw attention to himself.

[woodtoo]

Obama cant win on this one.

[Mandrake]

Tell him not to forget his selfie stick.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I have a brother with special needs (aspergers). He's intelligent enough, but because all the wires aren't connected correctly (lack of a better way to explain it) he sometimes can't reason well. He's sees the world the way it is in his own mind and can't adjust to reality. After decades of being in the company of someone like this, you eventually learn to cut certain conversations short to avoid conflict because the discussion will be fruitless. You allow him to babble away until he's done and pay no attention to him. That's the way we should all treat Obama. He's utterly clueless in every area of his responsibility. There' no point in having the conversation. Let him babble away and say whatever he wants, but block all the damaging policies until he's gone.

You sure it's your brother who has Aspergers, because it seems to me that you are the one who is set in his view of reality and refuses to accept the possibility that the world is not the way you view it.

And before you start shooting your mouth off about how I am disrespecting your brother and his handicap; let me inform you that I have a 17 year old great nephew with Aspergers. He isn't intelligent enough. He is brilliant, but his social skills aren't always the best.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

You are scrambling around like a cat trying to bury poop on a frozen pond in a vain attempt to avoid reality.

Congress went to great lengths to not use the word tax in the bill because a new tax was politically unacceptable, even to the Democratic base. Administration lawyers argued strenuously before the Court that it was not a tax.

But SCOTUS said that Congress didn't have any authority to levy a penalty, but they could impose a tax, so let's just call it a tax and we will call it constitutional and we will all live happily ever after.

And that is what is called legislating from the bench. They did not vote the law up or down, they changed it.

They whole thing here is that after the Supreme Court decision in NFIB v Sebelius conservatives criticized Roberts because he decided the case on the basis that the penalty was actually a tax. According to the conservatives, those who wrote the bill never considered it a tax.

However if you read the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, you will find that the government based its defense of the ACA on three principles;
The Commerce Clause, The Necessary and Proper Clause and the power of Congress to levy taxes. The Court disagreed on the first two, but agreed on the last.

During his oral arguments, Donald Vermulli, (Solicitor General) made reference to a session of the United States Senate on Dec. 23, 2009 where Sen. Baucus made a defense of the ACA on the basis of the right of Congress to levy taxes. Senator Baucus was the author of the ACA.

The SG also cited a prior case in which the court had held that a penalty can be a tax even if the word tax is not actually used. I think that case was the
"License Tax Cases."

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You sure it's your brother who has Aspergers, because it seems to me that you are the one who is set in his view of reality and refuses to accept the possibility that the world is not the way you view it.

And before you start shooting your mouth off about how I am disrespecting your brother and his handicap; let me inform you that I have a 17 year old great nephew with Aspergers. He isn't intelligent enough. He is brilliant, but his social skills aren't always the best.

We can see the way the world actually is by observing the actions and responses of people over time. That is reality.

Fantasy is raising taxes on someone and expecting that he's not going to look for ways to avoid them that could have negative implications elsewhere.

Fantasy is raising the cost of doing business and expecting that the owners who are risking their capital are going to absorb those costs out of the goodness of their hearts instead of trying to pass those costs on, reducing expenses (laying people off), leaving, or shutting down.

Fantasy is showing kindness and fairness to a ruthless aggressor and expecting him to be kind and fair in return instead of seeing it as an opportunity to take more from a weak rival.

Fantasy is thinking you can raise spending faster than economic growth and simply tax the rich more and more without eventually killing the goose.

Fantasy is thinking you can solve the problems of a country that has too much debt by encouraging government and people to borrow even more.

(You said nothing disrespectful about my brother. I don't disrespect him either. I've just had to learn how to cope with him.)