What is the flaw here:
The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to describe the “[s]hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a“penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.”
Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty”rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).
Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat itas such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functions like a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congress may not, for example, expand its power under the Taxing Clause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause’s constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a “tax.” See Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259
U. S. 20, 36–37 (1922); Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767, 779 (1994).
The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text.
pp. 18-19
(Emphasis supplied)
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSCOTUS is a political tool. If not, why then did we know how the majority would rule before the case was even presented? The Constitution is nothing more than a document to twist to fit your skewed political objectives.
Finished gloating yet? 😛
Now I get to read about people complaining about "activist judges" for the next few days/months/....
Originally posted by sh76Kind of reminds me of the cases regarding the withholding tax and Social Security, where SCOTUS ruled the FICA withholding tax wasn't an income tax.
... under the taxing power. 😕
If it walks like a duck and quacks, its what?
Talk about twisting and spinning, and by that reasoning, the floodgates are open, for the government to regulate anything, require buying anything and calling it a tax.
Once again, conservatives have been fooled. Wasn't Bush's first choice turned down, and Roberts was a second stringer?
Originally posted by whodeyWhere do you get your information? You should let USA Today know.
SCOTUS is a political tool. If not, why then did we know how the majority would rule before the case was even presented?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/insiders-high-court-will-kill-obama-health-care-mandate/1
I'm sure this will be obvious to most people, but I think it's worthy of explicit mention. Although the four traditionally liberal justices voted unanimously to uphold the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds, they in fact did not vote in unison to uphold Congress' authority to apply the Medicaid provision as written.
I personally find it heartening that in the same way that Roberts' "flipping" constituted an impressive display of non-partisanship, the liberal justices didn't vote as a "bloc" in favor of the federal government with specific regards to Medicaid.
Originally posted by wittywonkaYes, in fact, I've heard many progressives call Roberts a genius.
I'm sure this will be obvious to most people, but I think it's worthy of explicit mention. Although the four traditionally liberal justices voted unanimously to uphold the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds, they in fact did not vote in unison to uphold Congress' authority to apply the Medicaid provision as written.
I personally find it heartening tha ...[text shortened]... vote as a "bloc" in favor of the federal government with specific regards to Medicaid.
Originally posted by whodeyI've seen many independents, and a few conservatives, say similarly nice things about him, too.
Yes, in fact, I've heard many progressives call Roberts a genius.
Here's a good example, from a self-described person "who not only thought that the act would be overturned, but also still thinks there are strong constitutional arguments to be made against the mandate."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/opinion/sracic-justices-health/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
