Did Chief Justice Roberts come up with the "tax" basis for his obamaCare decision or was that part of the defense's argument before the court?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2012 6:15 PM GMT
    Just wondering?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidJust wondering?


    He came up with it - which allowed him to technically rule that it was unconstitutional to force someone to buy insurance but that it was acceptable to tax someone if you didn't - so the Obamacare becomes a tax and not a mandate:

    http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/06/chief-justice-roberts-writes-opinion.html

    This is an important opinion about federalism and the scope of Congress's enumerated powers. Even as the individual mandate was upheld under taxing power — and Roberts wrote about the expansiveness of that power — we have an opinion that limiting those other 2 powers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2012 6:37 PM GMT
    I didn't realize the Court could come up with its own basis. I thought it ruled on your arguments. Such that, if you based your position on a bad argument, the Court ruled against you and you had to wait for another case to use a winning argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2012 6:56 PM GMT
    The administration lawyers argued it was a tax:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

    Short-term gain, but this could really hurt Democrats long term (maybe).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2012 8:27 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidThe administration lawyers argued it was a tax:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

    Short-term gain, but this could really hurt Democrats long term (maybe).

    Thank you, Troy
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 28, 2012 10:06 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidI didn't realize the Court could come up with its own basis. I thought it ruled on your arguments. Such that, if you based your position on a bad argument, the Court ruled against you and you had to wait for another case to use a winning argument.


    Doesn't work that way. This was a constitutional case.

    By the way, I think Roberts set things up well. Even though he voted on the liberal side making the 5-4 for the mandate, he voted on the conservative side 5-4 that sates would not lose existing Medicaid funds if they refuse to part part in expanded MediCaid.

    We will see if this ruling moves people like I think it will. At any rate, it can be a bonanza for U.S. business if they structure so as to take advantage of what Obamacare allows. Somewhere on the globe, profits will appear.

    All in all ..... GOOD JOB.