JollyMagistrate: The article makes a pretty solid point about how by making this a tax they limit congress's ability to regulate commerce rather than to compel it.
terriblist: DNRTFA, but it seems to me that this decision holds that mandates can't rely on Commerce, because you can't regulate non-commerce (i.e., not buying health care in this case). I honestly don't know how wide-ranging that sort of precedent might be.
MurphyMurphy: Politically speaking, it would have done the same thing no matter which way the supreme court ruled. All it does is raise the volume. The ruling itself will prove to be rather politically neutral I think.It could be spun as a positive, if it has positive results. So in like 6 years if things go well, then it will be political capital to be spent. For now, ppl are too skeptical, uninformed and easily distracted for this to matter a ton (translate into votes this year)Each will spin to their advantage best they can. It's an election year, the volume is going to be very very loud anyways. The push for and the rhetoric surrounding the healthcare reform act was of political significance. Whether you hear republicans talk about repeal/replace or strut about proud of defeating it... does it really matter? (vice versa for dems)Whether or not it ultimately stuck was not really of consequence, you would heard the same arguments voiced and the term Obamacare said the same number of times either way.
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Also, his opinion regarding the commerce clause doesn't count as a ruling
Serious Black: Parts III-A and B, where Roberts said that the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause did not authorize regulating inactivity, were only signed by him. That would seem to not be binding precedent.
Lost Thought 00: Judging by the fact that GOP hirlings are starting to write editorials like "Is armed rebellion now justified?", I'm guessing the answer is no./They are just asking questions.
iccky: The binding precedent is that the mandate is not permitted under the Commerce clause
Freudian_slipknot: Poor conservatives. Having to share a victory.
iccky: Serious Black: Parts III-A and B, where Roberts said that the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause did not authorize regulating inactivity, were only signed by him. That would seem to not be binding precedent.It is, because it agreed with the holding of the 4 dissenting conservative justices with respect to the commerce clause. The binding precedent is that the mandate is not permitted under the Commerce clause, but is permitted because it is for an intents and purposes a tax.Basically everything Roberts wrote is binding precedent, because on the parts that side with the liberals the four liberal justices agree with him, and in the parts that side with the conservatives 4 conservative justices side with him./G.E.D. in law
ddam: That's really nice spin over there... the article didn't go into detail as to what other issues are on the horizon that would require the use of the commerce clause?I'm as liberal as you can get but even I think that government should not be involved in a lot of issues. Health care however is an issue that they should be involved as the health of its citizens should be a concern of the government.
GAT_00: 3. Uphold it and call it a tax. We're going to see $100M of ads saying Obama raised your taxes and citing this ruling
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Here's the thing: the court did NOT rule that it was illegal under the commerce clause. They opined it might be, but Roberts actual DECISION is simply that it is legal under tax laws. Opinions on "woulda coulda shoulda" are just that: opinions. Not precedent. If he had also said "speed limits are stupid", it doesn't mean that all of a sudden that a precedent was set that made speed limits illegal.
max_pooper: I read the first sentence and had to stop. I have yet to read Robert's opinion on this case but I seriously doubt it is "gutting the Commerce Clause." I figured everything that followed would be half tripe half spin.
bugontherug: iccky: The binding precedent is that the mandate is not permitted under the Commerce clauseNo sir. It is obiter dicta, and it would be even if 9 justices had signed onto it. It is dicta because it isn't necessary to the Court's final disposition of the case. Legally speaking, it's nothing more than Roberts opining his view of the Commerce Clause.
qorkfiend: After all, Romney also raises taxes on the poor and middle class
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 18 2018 17:34:41
Runtime: 0.377 sec (376 ms)