U.S. Politics, 15

[Shryke]

Lev,

It's really too bad for you and other supporters of mandates that the President and others stood so firmly on the proposition that the mandate was not a tax. I think legally that may have been a winning argument but when he is on record denying mandates are taxes repeatedly it makes it very hard for the Justice Department to come in with the post hoc rationalization of the madates as taxes.

What does the political stance have to do with the legal one?

[The Progressive]

Lev,

Gosh, I don't recall ever claiming the Supremes had ruled on the ACA. I'm simply pointing out courts in liberal and conservative districts have rejected the tax argument. It will come before the Supremes we'll see what happens.

So since there isn't any SCOTUS precedent that would invalidate the tax post hoc argument, then your legal "hurdles" seem to be quite fictitious and more like wishful thinking to me, Scot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Pres. Obama worked very hard so that he could say there was no tax increase associated with passage of the ACA. Then the Justice Dept. attempted to justify the mandates to purchase Health insurance as a tax.

[The Progressive]

Shryke,

Pres. Obama worked very hard so that he could say there was no tax increase associated with passage of the ACA. Then the Justice Dept. attempted to justify the mandates to purchase Health insurance as a tax.

Scot,

That's a PR problem, not a legal problem.

Try harder.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

So, the rulings of the District Court's have no effect? Yes, they can be appealed but as a Judge I was before once said, "I may be wrong but I'm right for the next year."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Yes, that's what I'm saying. He was addressing a PR problem and seems to have created a legal problem given the District Courts rejections of the Justice Dept.'s tax arguments.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

So, the rulings of the District Court's have no effect? Yes, they can be appealed but as a Judge I was before once said, "I may be wrong but I'm right for the next year."

Lol, true. But here's the thing ........ the mandate doesn't kick in until 2014, and if challenges against it drag on and on for years at the appeal courts, then I would be quite happy about that.

Can you guess why?

[The Progressive]

Lev,

Yes, that's what I'm saying. He was addressing a PR problem and seems to have created a legal problem given the District Courts rejections of the Justice Dept.'s tax arguments.

No, he created a PR problem now by advancing the argument that it a form of tax, which isn't a legal problem (only in the mind of wishful thinkers) until SCOTUS rule on it.

[Frog Eater]

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

Glenn Greenwald reveals that Bradley Manning - who has been convicted of no crime, has been kept in solitary confinement for 7 months. He is not allowed to exercise, even in his cell, and is denied even a pillow and a blanket for sleeping. Many would argue that he is being subjected to torture, despite his innocence before the law.

Even if he is guilty (and last I checked he is still innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law), he has not done anything to earn solitary confinement and not even a pillow or blankets. I can almost understand the government not wanting him to have prisoner interaction because of the risk of further information leaks (I said almost)but he still does not deserve solitary and no pillow or a blanket. Why no TV or radio? The no pillow or blanket and the thin prison garb would drive me insane alone. Dear god I like to think I live in a better country than this.

[Shryke]

Lev,

Yes, that's what I'm saying. He was addressing a PR problem and seems to have created a legal problem given the District Courts rejections of the Justice Dept.'s tax arguments.

How is it a legal problem? How does the President's PR have any effect on a court ruling?

Lev,

So, the rulings of the District Court's have no effect? Yes, they can be appealed but as a Judge I was before once said, "I may be wrong but I'm right for the next year."

They'll just get it to be ignored till it's decided for sure, like with DADT.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

You're hoping the entitlement will take effect and makr the Government afraid to retract it. I'll be shocked it the 4th Cir. Doesn't rule on the Virginia case quickly forcing the Justice Dept. To petiton for Cert. It only takes 4 Justices to have Cert. granted. This will be before the Supremes by the end of 2011.

[Lord Mord]

Swordfish,

Highly unlikely. Let's not forget that the democrats, for the most part, don't want the insurance companies to go way either.

They may not, but I think the point of the article is that external political pressure from their increasingly overburdened constituents will eventually overwhelm both parties' internal pressures of ideology or economy. It may be unlikely, but given that is the argument, then either party's reluctance doesn't enter into any equation of rational dissent without some additional factor, or else definitive proof the party in question would rather implode than reform.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Lev,

Gosh do you enjoy semantics debates.

Gee, you think so? :lol:

Are you saying Obama "acted stupidly?" :)

And from a Harvard Law Grad, no less....

The constitutionality of the mandate was known to be a potential issue before the bill was passed. All they had to avoid the constitutionality issue was levy a tax, and then give an identical tax credit if you either 1) had qualifying insurance through your employer, or 2) bought a policy on your own. Exact same effect, but a different procedure. Why couldn't the geniuses responsible for this plan do that and avoid this entire issue?

If "the smartest guys in the room" couldn't anticipate this challenge, or couldn't properly weigh its gravity, then maybe they weren't quite as smart as they and some others seem to think.

[Swordfish]

Swordfish,

They may not, but I think the point of the article is that external political pressure from their increasingly overburdened constituents will eventually overwhelm both parties' internal pressures of ideology or economy. It may be unlikely, but given that is the argument, then either party's reluctance doesn't enter into any equation of rational dissent without some additional factor, or else definitive proof the party in question would rather implode than reform.

I;'m not sure I understand what you're saying.

There isn't, as far as I know, any great amount of pressure on anyone to pass UHC. It's not even particularly popular.

Take then into account the disastrous consequences of allowing a huge industry like insurance to simply go under, and I just don't see where all this pressure comes from. And all that assumes that they really still care about their constituency, which is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

Do you really think the democratic voters are going to pressure the government to let the insurance companies collapse? Not to mention the amount of lobbying that will be in play.

It'll be pretty easy for the insurance companies to point to this bill as the cause once rates start climbing.

Gee, you think so? :lol:

And from a Harvard Law Grad, no less....

The constitutionality of the mandate was known to be a potential issue before the bill was passed. All they had to avoid the constitutionality issue was levy a tax, and then give an identical tax credit if you either 1) had qualifying insurance through your employer, or 2) bought a policy on your own. Exact same effect, but a different procedure. Why couldn't the geniuses responsible for this plan do that and avoid this entire issue?

If "the smartest guys in the room" couldn't anticipate this challenge, or couldn't properly weigh its gravity, then maybe they weren't quite as smart as they and some others seem to think.

Perhaps.

[The Progressive]

Lol, here's a pop quiz for all the rightwing legal-eagle on this board: if the fine for non-participation was changed to a tax instead, would that be sufficient in stopping the rightwing from challenging the ACA at SCOTUS?

ETA: I also find it hilarious that a couple of attorneys are whining about semantic arguments because they're being beaten at their own game. :laugh:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

It might. I also pointed out that the States could be coerced into passing mandate laws via bloc grant strings without raising Constitutional issues.

What's your point?

[The Progressive]

Lev,

It might. I also pointed out that the States could be coerced into passing mandate laws via bloc grant strings without raising Constitutional issues.

What's your point?

Wait Scot, you're actually naive enough to think that the rightwing won't challenge the federal authority to tax and spend if that particular provision was phrased as a tax instead? :laugh:

[Lord Mord]

Swordfish,

Do you really think the democratic voters are going to pressure the government to let the insurance companies collapse? Not to mention the amount of lobbying that will be in play.

Okay. It wasn't clear to me in your initial post you were rejecting one of the article's major supporting assumptions.

It sounded as though you were saying you saw the same evidence, i.e. an escalating voter mandate, but that the conclusion was wrong because the author hadn't factored in Democrats' paramount fondness for insurance companies.

Now, I do think that spiralling costs and a desire for backlash against insurance companies, who, as the foundation of the present system and being frequently villainized in pop culture besides, are, whatever their actual virtues or sins natural targets for scorn and blame, could without any serious sprain on or even stretch of the imagination create just such a poltical demand to limit their scope -- and indeed perhaps to replace them altogether. Yet I concede I don't know the numbers, and you may be right that it's unlikely.

[Shryke]

And from a Harvard Law Grad, no less....

The constitutionality of the mandate was known to be a potential issue before the bill was passed. All they had to avoid the constitutionality issue was levy a tax, and then give an identical tax credit if you either 1) had qualifying insurance through your employer, or 2) bought a policy on your own. Exact same effect, but a different procedure. Why couldn't the geniuses responsible for this plan do that and avoid this entire issue?

If "the smartest guys in the room" couldn't anticipate this challenge, or couldn't properly weigh its gravity, then maybe they weren't quite as smart as they and some others seem to think.

Or they were smart enough to know a tax always looks bad politically. And considering the only ruling against the mandate comes in the form of a rather dubious ruling from a judge so in the GOP's pocket he's hugging Boehner's nutsack, I don't think they were too worried about the court coming down against them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Sure such provisions could be challenged. I'm simply bright enough to know a Constitutional loser of an argument versus one that is at least debateable.

Shryke,

The Florida ruling was far from a slam dunk for the Justice Deptartment.