XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com   
      
   On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:42:44 -0700, Juris Diction    
   wrote:   
      
   >In article <8h6uu7dsk0ob2ks024c4io7b5i88gf3eks@4ax.com>,   
   > emoneyjoe  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:01:45 -0400, Ubiquitous    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >By David Catron   
   >> >   
   >> >In a craven decision written by the Chief Justice, the Court upholds   
   >> >most of PPACA.   
   >> >   
   >> >The government lawyers who defended the Patient Protection and   
   >> >Affordable Care Act (PPACA) before the Supreme Court probably began to   
   >> >fear that its "minimum coverage provision" was headed for the mortuary   
   >> >when Justice Kennedy, from whom they had hoped to receive a reprieve,   
   >> >said the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance "changes   
   >> >the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very   
   >> >fundamental way." They must have known it was a goner when Kennedy   
   >> >followed up with this lethal injection of reality: "Do you not have a   
   >> >heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the   
   >> >Constitution?"   
   >> >   
   >> >The Solicitor General, Donald Verilli, fended off that apparently deadly   
   >> >thrust with the absurd claim that the mandate wouldn't affect the   
   >> >government's relationship to the citizen as profoundly as Kennedy had   
   >> >suggested: "[A]ll this minimum coverage provision does is say that,   
   >> >instead of requiring insurance at the point of sale, that Congress has   
   >> >the authorityŠto ensure that people have insurance in advance of the   
   >> >point of sale." This argument was so weak and its delivery was so poor   
   >> >that most of the law's supporters sank into slough of despond. CNN's   
   >> >Jeffrey Toobin called Verilli's performance a "train wreck" and all but   
   >> >pronounced the PPACA dead.   
   >> >   
   >> >But the death of Obamacare and its much-reviled mandate was, as it turns   
   >> >out, greatly exaggerated. In an utterly Orwellian opinion authored by   
   >> >Chief Justice Roberts, the majority held that the mandate was not a tax   
   >> >for purposes of applying the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), but that it was   
   >> >constitutional because it falls within Congress' taxing powers: "The   
   >> >Affordable Care Act describes the ?s]hared responsibility payment' as a   
   >> >?enalty,' not a ?ax.' That label is fatal to the application of the   
   >> >Anti-Injunction Act.ŠIt does not, however, control whether an exaction   
   >> >is within Congress's power to tax." So, sometimes it's a tax and   
   >> >sometimes it's not.   
   >> >   
   >> >Chief Justice Roberts had to use two definitions of "tax" because AIA   
   >> >forbids legal challenges to taxes before they go into effect, and the   
   >> >mandate doesn't take effect until 2014. For the AIA to apply, then, the   
   >> >mandate had to qualify as a tax. When the first legal challenges to   
   >> >Obamacare were litigated, the government tried to argue that the mandate   
   >> >was indeed a tax, but couldn't find any buyers because Congress had gone   
   >> >out of its way to avoid characterizing it as such. In all of the many   
   >> >courts that considered the legal implications of "reform," only a single   
   >> >judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took the tax argument   
   >> >seriously.   
   >> >   
   >> >And Roberts also rejected that argument -- until it came time to deal   
   >> >with the central question of the Obamacare challenges: Is it within the   
   >> >legitimate power of Congress to command individuals to purchase health   
   >> >insurance? To answer this question in the affirmative the Chief Justice   
   >> >had to change his method of defining the word "tax" in midstream.   
   >> >Notwithstanding the contortions Congress went through to avoid   
   >> >associating the "T" word with the mandate, Roberts followed "a   
   >> >functional approach, ?d]isregarding the designation of the exaction,   
   >> >and viewing its substance and application.'"   
   >> >   
   >> >The Court also upheld the rest of the law, except for part of its   
   >> >Medicaid provision. In all, the justices considered four questions to   
   >> >arrive at this ruling. The first involved AIA. The second concerned the   
   >> >mandate. A third question involved severability: Was the Court required   
   >> >to strike down the entire statute if it deemed the mandate   
   >> >unconstitutional? Obviously, the ruling rejected the jurisdictional   
   >> >issue raised by AIA and the severability question was rendered moot when   
   >> >the mandate was upheld. The final question considered was the claim,   
   >> >made in Florida v. HHS and NFIB v. Sebelius, that PPACA's expansion of   
   >> >Medicaid was unconstitutionally coercive.   
   >> >   
   >> >On this Medicaid question the majority took a different view than was   
   >> >taken by the lower courts, where the plaintiffs had a tough time selling   
   >> >the coercion argument. Even U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who struck   
   >> >down Obamacare in its entirety in early 2011 and started Florida v. HHS   
   >> >on its long road to the Supreme Court, wrote that the states "always   
   >> >have the option, however impractical, to withdraw from Medicaid." Today,   
   >> >the Court ruled that the federal government cannot withhold all matching   
   >> >funds from a state that does not agree to expand the joint state-federal   
   >> >program as PPACA dictates.   
   >> >   
   >> >Needless to say, some of the justices disagreed with the majority.   
   >> >Justice Kennedy, whom everyone expected to be the swing vote, was   
   >> >particularly succinct as he read his dissenting opinion from the bench:   
   >> >"In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety." Kennedy   
   >> >went on to point out the glaring inconsistencies between the "reform"   
   >> >law itself and the way it was characterized in the ruling: "What   
   >> >Congress calls a penalty, we call a tax ŠCongress went to great lengths   
   >> >to say it was a penalty ŠIn short, the court imposes a tax when   
   >> >Congress deliberately rejected a tax."   
   >> >   
   >> >Thus Chief Justice Roberts saved Obamacare and its egregious mandate. He   
   >> >cast the deciding vote with the Court's liberals, justices Kagan,   
   >> >Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Then, he wrote a majority opinion   
   >> >containing enormous logical and semantic inconsistencies to justify that   
   >> >vote. He used two conflicting definitions of "tax" and, as Kennedy   
   >> >pointed out, ignored the actual text of the statute. So the country will   
   >> >have to go on living with the the grotesque morass of bad ideas and   
   >> >corrupt bargains that constitutes Obamacare, despite countless surveys   
   >> >showing that Americans wanted the Court to overturn all or part of the   
   >> >monstrosity.   
   >> >   
   >> >As to the effect of the ruling on the industry Obamacare purports to   
   >> >"reform," it will be minor. Health providers have been preparing for the   
   >> >advent of Obamacare's major provisions for two years, in areas ranging   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)