# SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499 "2012-06-27T19:56:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/241 "2012-06-28T16:50:35Z")
Does this decision effectively gut the AIA since Congress can simply declare any “tax” to not be a tax? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/242 "2012-06-28T16:52:09Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > You realize everyone you debate in the SDMB are not all the same person using a hundred different screennames, right? Yes. Yes, I do. I just thought Lobohan would want to hop over to that thread and correct **Euphonious Polemic**. Kind of a public service. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/243 "2012-06-28T16:54:07Z")
You guys realize that the winger websites have all seized on this whole “tax” thing to be outraged about, don’t you? That’s why you’re seeing the unified outrage by the usual suspects here. I would recommend not engaging with the supposed black conservative who can afford to pay for medical care out of pocket, but refuses to get insurance. For consumer choice reasons, I guess. Though you’d have to be an unattached 20-something with lousy income to want to make that “choice,” even though it’s not really a choice. > [@](#): > > I found it funny on CNN when one of the anchors asked the guy from SCOTUSblog why Roberts went with the majority, like it was some huge riddle, and the guy said, “Likely because he thought it was the right decision.” In fact there is evidence from Roberts himself that he does not like to overrule the “will of the people”. I _knew_ he’d turn into David Souter! It was only a matter of time. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/244 "2012-06-28T16:54:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Are you okay? Maybe you should lie down. Can I get you a biscotti and a Fresca? Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit. > [@Bricker](#): > > Me? I’m fine. What are you worried about me for? You’re wasting time with me when you should be scurrying over to that thread and correct that old chestnut, don’t you think? Again, the personal discussion (even of yourself) is not the main focus here. Please let this go. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I would recommend not engaging with the supposed black conservative Again, the personal commentary doesn’t belong in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/245 "2012-06-28T16:54:40Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Does this decision effectively gut the AIA since Congress can simply declare any “tax” to not be a tax? Yes it does. Write any law with a penalty. but have it function like a tax. It gets through on this precedent. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/246 "2012-06-28T16:54:40Z")
Does today’s ruling mean the end for the commerce clause arguments? In the future won’t every bill just institute a “tax” instead of a penalty? Overturn Lopez by taxing guns in school zones. Overturn Morrison by imposing a federal tax on domestic violence. Except for things with impose hardships to basic fundamental rights, is there now nothing the feds can’t control by calling it a tax? Further, can someone explain to me how it is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not a tax for AIA purposes? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/247 "2012-06-28T16:54:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Obama swore up and down it was not a tax. The administration then defended it as a tax to the court. Yes, they did. SCOTUS had a different opinion. How does that make Obama a liar? ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/248 "2012-06-28T16:55:47Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Weren’t his lawyers arguing it was a tax in court? Absolutely not. The court’s majority came up with that on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/249 "2012-06-28T16:55:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Me? I’m fine. What are you worried about me for? You’re wasting time with me when you should be scurrying over to that thread and correct that old chestnut, don’t you think? Wait… I’m a hypocrite because I didn’t correct someone’s argument in a thread I wasn’t even posting in? Edit: I just saw the Moderator’s comment. I meant it to be funny, since it was such a non sequitur. I will back off. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/250 "2012-06-28T16:56:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, I think I’m right here. ‘Under such an analysis, X maybe be considered Y’ is not the same as ‘X is Y.’ What I’m seeing is the majority found the mandate Constitutional because it’s covered by Congress’ power to tax. Saying “it’s a tax” seems to be a blurring of the actual ruling (or a grab for a straw). Another gem from further down the ruling: > [@John Roberts](#): > > It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/251 "2012-06-28T16:57:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > For me, the key point is that it was a limitation on the commerce clause (yay but I would have preferred it to specifically overturn _Wickard_. Sorry Bricker). But now the government has virtually unlimited power of taxation in that it can require you to do something or face a penalty except it’s called a tax and not a penalty. In a way that is even more scary because it means that not only could Congress make you pay for not buying a house or a car or wheat, but since it is independent of commerce and taxes behavior you could theoretically be taxed for not voting, not going to college, not having a library card, etc. This is my worry, and much better said than I did. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/252 "2012-06-28T16:57:46Z")
Once again the federal government fails to limit the power of the federal government. If only the people had [recourse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)) in such an instance… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/253 "2012-06-28T16:58:15Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Question. > If the law is implemented, can it still be challenged on con law grounds as it’s applied to a specific individual? Say for instance, someone who had a religious belief against medical care, and chose, on those grounds, not to participate by refusing to obtain the coverage or pay the “tax” (fine). I don’t think there si a requirement that you get medical care, only that you pay for it. Heck I pay for insurance every year and only see a doctor in about half those years. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/254 "2012-06-28T16:59:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Once again the federal government fails to limit the power of the federal government. If only the people had [recourse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)) in such an instance… [QUOTE=Jim DeMint] I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation. [/QUOTE] [http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/demint-obamacare-still-unconstitutional-states-should-refuse-to?ref=fpblg](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/demint-obamacare-still-unconstitutional-states-should-refuse-to?ref=fpblg) I wonder what other laws Jim DeMint thinks the states should nullify. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/255 "2012-06-28T16:59:56Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Once again the federal government fails to limit the power of the federal government. If only the people had [recourse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)) in such an instance… From the link: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > The theory of nullification never has been legally upheld. Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. Why do you believe the circumstances will be different this time around? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/256 "2012-06-28T17:00:31Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Yes, they did. SCOTUS had a different opinion. How does that make Obama a liar? I explained upthread that Obama _may_ be a liar due to this. Feel free to scroll up a little. Again: Obama swore up and down it was NOT a tax, and then had his administration argue that the mandate should be allowed to stand because it WAS. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/257 "2012-06-28T17:01:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I explained upthread that Obama _may_ be a liar due to this. Feel free to scroll up a little. > > Again: Obama swore up and down it was NOT a tax, and then had his administration argue that the mandate should be allowed to stand because it WAS. Can I get a cite for him arguing that? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/258 "2012-06-28T17:02:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Can I get a cite for him arguing that? Arguing what? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/259 "2012-06-28T17:02:08Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think Roberts has the best understanding, and places the most emphasis on how the court is viewed by the public. I think he understood how bad a 5-4 reversal of this would have played in the general public. Why do people say a 5-4 reversal of the individual mandate would have made the public unhappy? It was the most unpopular part of the bill, after all. Wouldn’t it have been _good_ for the court’s image? (If “good” means “making the public happy with its decisions” anyway…) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/260 "2012-06-28T17:03:14Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Oh, look. A question posed in a way to elicit a certain response. Surprising. > > Anyway, it did answer your question. Do you not know what a lie is? Did Scalia say anything about the ACA not being a tax in the past? No, he did not. Did Obama said anything about the ACA not being a tax in the past? Yes, he did. > > This is so simple to understand, the fact that I’m even having this discussion with you is mind-boggling. Apparently, in your world, if two people say the same thing at point X then either both are liars or neither can be liars, as what they’ve said in the past is irrelevant to whether or not they’re deemed to have lied. I have to be missing something here. Has Obama ever said it _was_ a tax? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=14)