Quantcast

Supreme Court INVALIDATES health care law? Say what?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/30 18:24:16
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Nick Purpura, the author of the linked article, filed the most comprehensive anti-Obamacare lawsuit that anyone ever filed, in any court (Purpura v Sibelius, 11-7275). In this piece, he of course excoriates John Roberts, as did the conservative dissenters (Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas JJ, jointly!), for rewriting the law to save it. (And in the process giving the Congress an unlimited taxing power that sets at naught every protection against the arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law. The only thing the government cannot arbitrarily do to you is execute you or confine you.)

Have a look at the Purpura case. It lists nineteen separate violations of the Constitution and monumental inconsistencies with existing law.

The big point that Purpura makes in this piece is: John Roberts said that this is a tax. OK. But this tax originated in the Senate. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

So what really happened here? Well: after Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy, the House simply took an unrelated bill, stripped it of its contents and short title, put in the Senate language (even the "In the Senate of the United States" heading), and then "deemed it passed" in the vote on the House Rule. Classic bait-and-switch.

But Judge Roger Vinson of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida has already said that the bill originated in the Senate. What about that?

That finding stands and is not controverted. So Mr. Purpura says, and I agree with him, that his case deserves a reargument. And more broadly speaking, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional.

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/30...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Walt 2012/06/30 19:08:25 (edited)
    Agree.
    Walt
    +16
    "... Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional... "

    As much as I've hated seeing 0bama, the Senate, and the House beat the Constitution like a whipped dog, I hate it even more seeing the Supreme Court treating it this way. Despite 0bama's appointments to the SC and Judge Ginsburg, I have always previously had great respect for the SC.

    Now I have very little respect for any of them.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~ 2012/07/04 19:14:12
    I have another idea...
    Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~
    +1
    They all didn't but if it's true Roberts did. Maybe he didn't turn on us. Time will tell.
    scotus sponsor robes
  • William 2012/07/04 06:32:47
    Agree.
    William
    +2
    That is to say, "I hope so." Us working poor can't afford another tax hike.
  • Carl 2012/07/04 01:13:12
    Undecided
    Carl
    +2
    If the case law cited is true, then the ACA will invalidated.
  • Murph 65 2012/07/03 23:21:07
    Agree.
    Murph 65
    +2
    But are we sure any longer that the Supremes, or anyone else for that matter, are smart enough to understand this?
  • RogerRover 2012/07/03 19:41:05
    Agree.
    RogerRover
    +4
    Robert's seemingly naive and stupid 'mistake' will be the very thing that defeats both the Obamacare boondoggle AND the head boondoggler himself. Stroke of genius. I'm encouraged. Repeal the unworkable 21 Tax, 2600 page disaster simply by repealing Mr. Obumbler. I'll vote for that.....
  • scbluesman13 2012/07/03 19:02:40
    Disagree.
    scbluesman13
    +1
    It's not technically a tax, but a tax penalty. You'll hear people in the media pushing this argument back and forth as to whether or not it's a tax or a penalty, but that's just for political punditry. The real reason the classification of a "tax penalty" is important is because this version of the bill originated in the Senate and not the House, although technically the 2 versions were fused together, and then sent back through the house for approval before going to the senate.
  • seadog6... scblues... 2012/07/03 22:30:28
  • scblues... seadog6... 2012/07/09 20:48:29
    scbluesman13
    Actually it's a big difference. Penalties issued by failure to act in accordance with this law are not prosecutable by any court or by the DOJ. Nor can the IRS seek recompense by garnishing wages or instituting further penalties or fines when someone does not purchase insurance under the ACA. These limitations of enforcement were written into the bill specifically to soften the language behind the mandate, as Obama really didn't want the mandate to be there - it was a bargain he had to strike with the insurance companies in order to get the other pieces he wanted, like kids coverage till 26, no-cancellation of coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.
  • seadog6... scblues... 2012/07/09 22:21:01 (edited)
  • scblues... seadog6... 2012/07/12 00:25:23
    scbluesman13
    It wish it were just about semantics, but alas it is not. yes, you cannot get out of paying your taxes, but there are 2 sections in the healthcare law that specifically explain that the law is not capable of enforcing either penalties or legal action for failure to pay these penalties. That's also part of why these are penalties and not taxes.

    And I use the term "kids" interchangeably with "dependents". That is a semantics thing.
  • seadog6... scblues... 2012/07/12 08:27:45
  • texasred 2012/07/03 13:31:21
    Undecided
    texasred
    +4
    I hope so!!!
  • ★Calliope★ 2012/07/03 02:34:28 (edited)
    Undecided
    ★Calliope★
    +3
    I don't know. I sure wish it were a black or white issue. It should be but any time you let a whole bunch of lawyers have a say - this is what you get.

    It sounds like there is standing. But these idiots take lessons from Janus.

    I can only look at the Constitution. The wording does not seem ambiguous. The Senate and House 'bait and switch' is merely one more legal letter of the law bit of underhandedness that these folks seem to thrive upon.

    Too bad Pelosi drained the swamp only to fill it with raw sewage.
  • shaltov72 2012/07/03 01:04:44
    Agree.
    shaltov72
    +3
    Roberts destroyed what our Founders painstakingly risked their lives for and many others who gave their life for us to have one of the greatest documents in all of history, and the us supreme court wiped it out! Hi comrade!
  • PrettieReptar 2012/07/02 17:10:21
    Undecided
    PrettieReptar
    +6
    Something is definitely going on with Roberts ruling. First off, the Obamacare mandate was based on the Commerce Clause not the Tax and Spending clause. So how the hell did they conclude that this is a tax? How can you validate a law based on a faulty premise?
  • gr8punkin 2012/07/02 15:44:33
    Agree.
    gr8punkin
    +5
    I believe Justice Roberts wanted to find a way to eliminate Obamacare, while forcing the issue of government overreach to the fore front. I may be being overly optimistic, but it's better than being a pessimist.
  • shaltov72 gr8punkin 2012/07/03 01:12:19
    shaltov72
    +3
    He's affraid of pelosi, soros, obama reid and the owners of the federal reserve which is owned by foreign bankers, the taxes will be going to them to make the American people poorer!
  • Farnsworth 2012/07/02 15:04:43
    Undecided
    Farnsworth
    +6
    and what can be done about it? Not a damned thing. We are soooooo

    screwed
  • 'Zedd Farnsworth 2012/07/03 00:21:02
  • Farnsworth 'Zedd 2012/07/03 02:31:26
    Farnsworth
    +4
    I'll try
  • ★Calliope★ Farnsworth 2012/07/03 02:36:57
    ★Calliope★
    +3
    Yep.. I think so too. Pretty much.
  • Murph 65 Farnsworth 2012/07/03 23:22:50
    Murph 65
    +1
    Great pic!! Thanks.
  • V~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/02 14:58:49
    Agree.
    V~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +5
    I agree that the Obamacare tax bill did not originate in the House, and the bill that passed in the Senate was never ratified by the House at all. But this was not what the Supreme Court was asked to decide. Now that it's a tax, the next round of lawsuits can challenge the bait-and-switch technique.

    Strategically, I'm not sure if it's worth overturning Obamacare. Is it more important to get rid of Obamacare or to get rid of Obama? A second term for that clown is probably going to include an equally overreaching attempt at gun control, and 4 more years of tax-and-spend.

    If the end game is repeal, the status of the individual mandate as a tax means Obamacare can be handled as a finance matter, subject to the budget reconciliation process. It won't take 60 votes in the Senate to kill it; a simple majority will do. Considering the creativity in getting the law passed, there is truly no limit as to how much creativity can be exerted in getting it killed.

    I think it would be better to force Obama to run on his record -- including Obamacare in its full glory. If Romney wins, Obamacare is gone. If Obama wins, we are stuck with a royal mess. If this issue won't mobilize the anti-socialists in November, nothing will.
  • TheTruth1313 2012/07/02 06:30:29
    Agree.
    TheTruth1313
    +5
    I am beginning to see this. They definitely hurt it by having it called a tax. Now it is up to us to put the right people in and it will then be up to them to do the right thing and eliminate ovomitcare completely.
  • Ms. Texas TheTrut... 2012/07/02 10:54:44
    Ms. Texas
    +6
    Ovomitcare? That's a good one. I'll have to use that one if you don't mind.
  • 'Zedd Ms. Texas 2012/07/03 00:20:10
  • TheTrut... 'Zedd 2012/07/03 06:46:15
    TheTruth1313
    +1
    Another very appropriate term as well. Given the new developments.
  • TheTrut... Ms. Texas 2012/07/03 06:45:36
    TheTruth1313
    +1
    Please feel free to and also feel free to use my friend DeeZed's "Obamatax" as well. Thank you for your reply
  • Uranos7 2012/07/02 05:25:34
    Agree.
    Uranos7
    +3
    I doubt that will be enough to kill it but since 70% of the country was against the mandate and that part was kept it will empower the republican response to shoot it down.
  • Ken 2012/07/02 04:10:43 (edited)
    Agree.
    Ken
    +4
    Will the SCOTUS continue to be un-Constitutional?
  • dallas Ken 2012/07/02 08:07:01 (edited)
  • shaltov72 dallas 2012/07/03 01:20:58
    shaltov72
    +1
    If you would really look at it everyone of them are owned by the one world order elitists,
    it does not matter what political party they belong to, as long as you have a soros, or rothchilds, rockefellers, (the banking elitists) they will tell the congress, senate, us supreme court, and this puppet prez as bush's were also. Do you remember when bush the senior idiot who said," we are entering in a new world order", will here is a tie to that comment, the Georgia Guide Stone, it is exactly what they want to do to all of us, its called elimination of population, the enviromental nazi's only want 500 million on the earth!
  • dallas shaltov72 2012/07/03 01:51:32
  • RJ~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/02 02:13:23
    Undecided
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    I'm undecided because of Vinson's ruling. So I don't see how we can say that the confused Chief Justice inadvertently invalidated the law he was trying to preserve until the re-hearing occurs.

    I'm no expert, but it seems to me there can also be a challenge to the irrational "the penalty isn't a penalty it's a tax, but it's not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law" logic that Roberts concoted!
  • getu 2012/07/02 01:14:59
    I have another idea...
    getu
    +4
    If the Supreme Court judges and served according to their purpose in existing, the law would have been invalidated. However, we have Justice John Roberts who decided that he wants to be involved in the Congressional responsibilities of writing a bill. Or maybe he just wants to play in the House... Hope he enjoys being known as the first Supreme Court Justice who didn't understand his job and who played politics.
  • Stryder 2012/07/01 21:45:52
    Agree.
    Stryder
    +2
    I hope something positive comes from this.
  • voice_matters 2012/07/01 19:25:07
    Disagree.
    voice_matters
    roberts re-wrote nothing libby
  • JoeM~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/01 19:15:54
    Agree.
    JoeM~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    In a narrow interpretation, the case would seem to have merit, but I fear, the fact that it started out as a house bill, will be enough to disallow the argument.
  • Al B Thayer 2012/07/01 14:23:21
    Undecided
    Al B Thayer
    +3
    I wish it were that simple.
  • damnyoumaggot 2012/07/01 12:31:38
    Agree.
    damnyoumaggot
    +5
    FL Governor Rick Scott: Florida will not comply...

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/20 03:27:10

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals