Monday, July 2, 2012
listening to analysis of Supreme Court ruling
Now in trying to find a good analysis of this law, I hear one section brought up which is on page 37 of the ruling.
In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) (“[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act”). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60–61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–50 (Mar. 26,2012).
With the point being, This does not solve the preexisting condition problem. People could chose to pay the tax, which could never exceed the price of insurance, and only get insurance when needed.
So if Chief Roberts is a genius and is playing some great game of chess, this opinion will lead to the incredible future ruling (9-0) overturning the law.
This lawsuit was done by NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. This does not mean it must be the one and only lawsuit filed. Insurance companies can now file suit. Insurance companies claim harm by this law not fixing the preexisting issue, and could claim instead it destroys them.
Is OBAMACARE upheld? Would not the insurance companies be able to bring suit? Could some people sue later when they are paying the tax?
Some part of the decision has support while others seem to have a lot of decent. Is all the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts considered to be in effect? If Ginsburg Et Al (not sure if that is the proper use of it) descent on some part of the decision, does it have majority power? Is the the entire opinion of Roberts C. J. even if that section is only aggreed to by some?
Suppose in some decision lets say (Kramer v Kramer) in this decision we have four justices agreeing on one opinion, three on another opinion, and 2 on a third opinion. Who wins? The four? Or would the three and two person opinions be consider the majority?
I am also hearing that by having this declared as tax this eliminates the need to overcome a filibuster in overturning the law. This become part of budget reconciliation. So Chief Justice Roberts has made it easier to repeal.
Is Chief John Roberts playing chess? Or are people just trying to find some reason not to hate him and his opinion. It sounds like people are saying “Yea Yea he was playing a game a chess. He just being clever, he has plan, yea he has a plan for it never to be ever attempted ever again. See he's smart, he's thinking. Its all part of a big plan.”