28 Jun 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think the main complaints will be about the flip-flopping the administration did in terms of whether the mandate were a tax.
Finished gloating yet? 😛
Now I get to read about people complaining about "activist judges" for the next few days/months/....
I haven't seen the opinion yet (it doesn't appear to be available yet), but I don't understand one thing. If it's a tax, shouldn't any challenge to it be unripe under the anti-injunction act? If so, how could the Court rule on its constitutionality? It's not a case or controversy yet.
Anyway, I'll have to wait for the opinion. The talking heads on cable don't seem to have any idea as to what they're talking about.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by sh76http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
I think the main complaints will be about the flip-flopping the administration did in terms of whether the mandate were a tax.
I haven't seen the opinion yet (it doesn't appear to be available yet), but I don't understand one thing. If it's a tax, shouldn't any challenge to it be unripe under the anti-injunction act? If so, how could the Court rule on its co ...[text shortened]... he talking heads on cable don't seem to have any idea as to what they're talking about.
193 pages; knock yourself out.
The key part upholding the IM under the taxing power starts on p. 37 and goes for about 15 pages. It seems pretty well reasoned.
28 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Basically Roberts says that because the Anti-Injunction Act is a statute as is PPACA the label that Congress uses is controlling for Anti-Injunction Act purposes (i.e. that's statutory construction which is controlled by Congressional intent). But as to whether the IM is a tax for constitutional purposes is not controlled by what it is called in the statute ("a penalty"😉; one must make an independent assessment of its characteristics. Roberts also says that IF there is any reasonable argument that the IM is a tax on those who chose not to buy health insurance, judicial restraint requires it be not found unconstitutional. Pretty sneaky, but it does make sense (haven't got to the dissent yet though).
I think the main complaints will be about the flip-flopping the administration did in terms of whether the mandate were a tax.
I haven't seen the opinion yet (it doesn't appear to be available yet), but I don't understand one thing. If it's a tax, shouldn't any challenge to it be unripe under the anti-injunction act? If so, how could the Court rule on its co he talking heads on cable don't seem to have any idea as to what they're talking about.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by no1marauderTo answer my question, from the syllabus:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
193 pages; knock yourself out.
The key part upholding the IM under the taxing power starts on p. 37 and goes for about 15 pages. It seems pretty well reasoned.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering
that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,
“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”
That's just the syllabus, not the opinion, but it seems like a bit of a stretch at first glance.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by sh76Read my post directly above this one of yours.
To answer my question, from the syllabus:
[quote]
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering
that constitutional question, ...[text shortened]... hat's just the syllabus, not the opinion, but it seems like a bit of a stretch at first glance.
28 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe tax anti-injunction act, passed in 1867 states:
Short version:
Roberts: In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax. p. 64
no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed
It strains credulity to me to argue that the intent of this statute was merely to affect what Congress specifically referred to by the word "tax" but not what Congress could not constitutionally pass other than through its taxing power.
Edit: The word "any" modifying the word tax, seemingly superfluous, would seem to militate against the Court's conclusion.
What does the word "any" add to the word "tax" if Congress literally has to use the word "tax" for the Act to apply?
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by sh76(Shrug) Does it matter? None of the Justices wanted to "kick the can" down the road two years. It would have invited chaos to put the PPACA in effect and then litigate its constitutionality.
The tax anti-injunction act, passed in 1867 states:
no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed
It strains credulity to me to argue that the intent of this statute was merely to affec ...[text shortened]... the word "tax" if Congress literally has to use the word "tax" for the Act to apply?
On the merits, I don't see why Congress couldn't explicitly say in a law "this is not a tax for Anti-Injunction Act purposes but it is enacted under our Taxing Power". And if it could do so explicitly, I don't see why it can't be reasoned it did so implicitly.