SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12

[Marley23]

@lance_strongarm

Hey, just noticed that we can do this too:

“I think you and others here are confused about what the role of the Supreme Court is. They do not determine if a corporation is a person, devoid of all context. Rather, they answer subtler questions of whether it might be reasonably considered to act like a person for certain matters of law.”

If you want to discuss the corporate personhood issue further, please do it in another thread.

[magellan01]

@Marley23

The court didn’t say the penalty is a tax. It said that in some respects it’s not a tax (and Republicans agreed - otherwise the court could not have considered the issue). It said the penalty is Constitutional because it falls within the realm of Congress’ taxation powers.

Do you (or anyone) know what things currently fall under Congress’ taxation powers? I’m curious to see if there other things that are “non-taxes”.

[magellan01]

@Marley23

If you want to discuss the corporate personhood issue further, please do it in another thread.

FWIW, I didn’t take that post to indicate he wanted to discuss corporate personhood. I saw it as a an analogy to make a point about the particular argument presented.

[lance_strongarm]

@Marley23

If you want to discuss the corporate personhood issue further, please do it in another thread.

Don’t worry, I don’t intend to here. My post was more about the role of the courts.

[Marley23]

@magellan01

Do you (or anyone) know what things currently fall under Congress’ taxation powers? I’m curious to see if there other things that are “non-taxes”.

I’m not sure.

[lance_strongarm]

@magellan01

Do you (or anyone) know what things currently fall under Congress’ taxation powers? I’m curious to see if there other things that are “non-taxes”.

You mean any other ways it raises revenue that aren’t quite a “tax” in the sense we normally think?

How about a tariff? Or a user fee? That sort of thing? Is that what you mean?

[magellan01]

@lance_strongarm

You mean any other ways it raises revenue that aren’t quite a “tax” in the sense we normally think?

How about a tariff? Or a user fee? That sort of thing? Is that what you mean?

I’m wondering about this “power of taxation” under which Roberts found the act’s constitutionality. I’m wondering what things might fall under this power and how broad the range is. Is it only stuff that are actual taxes, or does it include things like your tariffs, user fees and God know what else?

[yorick73]

@Marley23

I don’t find it ridiculous and I don’t see why the Court has to decide what kind of tax it is. That wasn’t the question the justices were considering. They were considering its Constitutionality and five of them agreed that the Constitution allows Congress to do this with the justification that Congress can do this if it can levy taxes. Roberts addressed early in the ruling why this is OK:

I’ve already stated, and the dissent mentioned, that the type of tax is important for constitutional reasons. If it is, as it most resembles, a direct tax then the tax would have to be apportioned among the states or prohibited. If you still can’t see why the Court has to decide what kind of tax it is I would direct you to the 16th amendment. Why do you suppose that amendment was necessary?

As an aside…if you have not read the dissent I suggest you do. They went to great lengths to show the differences between a penalty and tax.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The court did decide what kind of tax it was. They specifically noted that it was not capitation-based and was triggered by events.

[yorick73]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The court did decide what kind of tax it was. They specifically noted that it was not capitation-based and was triggered by events.

No, they did not. Can you post the relevant paragraph where they defined what kind of tax it IS as opposed to what Roberts thinks it IS NOT.

From the dissent:

@dissent

Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration than the lick-and a-promise accorded by the Government and its supporters. The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. Petitioners’ Minimum Coverage Reply Brief 25. At oral argument, the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50 words. Tr. of Oral Arg. 79 (Mar. 27, 2012). One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

There are only two kinds of tax for constitutional purposes, so if it’s not one it’s the other. Page 41:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct taxthat must be apportioned among the several States.

[UltraVires]

CBS is reporting that Roberts switched views because of media pressure:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Isn’t that what a Supreme Court Justice is NOT supposed to do?

[Jas09]

That article does not say that Roberts changed his vote because of media pressure… in fact, here is the most on-point section:

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.

[mhendo]

@jtgain

CBS is reporting that Roberts switched views because of media pressure:

Would you mind pointing out where the article says that?

Edit: Ninjaed by Jas09.

[lance_strongarm]

@jtgain

CBS is reporting that Roberts switched views because of media pressure:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Isn’t that what a Supreme Court Justice is NOT supposed to do?

Nobody has any idea why he did what he did except for him. Bunch of idiotic mind-readers.

[Marley23]

@jtgain

CBS is reporting that Roberts switched views because of media pressure:

That is not what what the article says. And I would be cautious about taking that stuff at face value. It probably comes from people inside the court who are unhappy with Roberts and want to make him look bad.

[yorick73]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

There are only two kinds of tax for constitutional purposes, so if it’s not one it’s the other. Page 41:

There are three kinds of tax for constitutional purposes (if you count the 16th amendment). Or were you suggesting that this is an excise tax? It doesn’t seem to be an income tax as this is not an increase in income taxes with a rebate for those who puchase insurance. the “tax” is triggered by not having insurance.

[UltraVires]

This part:

[QUOTE=The Article]
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts’ reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.
[/QUOTE]

[Jas09]

Yeah, read that part too. It says that he reads media reports and is concerned about the court’s image. It doesn’t say that he changed his vote because of it. In fact, it later explicitly says that observers don’t think that’s why he changed his vote.

Not to mention it’s completely un-sourced.

[mhendo]

That quoted section still doesn’t say that “Roberts switched views because of media pressure.”

It does sort of imply that this is what he did, but there’s really nothing substantive in the way of evidence or testimony; it’s all speculation and weasel-wording.