CaneBrain, on 30 June 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:
You're still just saying nonsense. They did not re-write anything. They (roberts) ruled the penalty operates as a tax which is an argument that was made by the Solicitor General during oral argument.It's really simple and not that complicated. Making your inability to grasp it combined with your attempt to be condescending very, very amusing.
I have always like you, still do. I really don't want to be condescending, but you are wrong.I will let Justice Ginsburg make my argument.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 120Opinion of GINSBURG, J.THE CHIEF JUSTICE nevertheless would rewrite §1304to countenance only the “right to alter somewhat,” or “amend, but not toomuch.” Congress, however, did not so qualify §1304.It is fully understood that Congress meant that the Mandate was to be a Penalty instead of a Tax. The original bill was rejected when the Mandate was to be a Tax.Page 150SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissentingAnd the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, ratherthan where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] actrende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not atax.For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but torewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubl- ing.Page 151We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislationthat imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111thCong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy FutureAct of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a taxthrough judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch ofgovernmentleast accountable to the citizenry.I don't know if you have read the dessent but it is well written and powerful. I challenge every one to read this document. You will find out that the Conservitive Judges are not Monsters. You will also understand John Roberts rambling opions has done great damage. Justice Ginsburg even called him out.