- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS will hear Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. next week.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:37 pm
LINK
I'm reading a little chatter here and there that the chances of Hobby Lobby getting a favorable ruling are pretty good. The likely ruling will be 5-4, you know the make-up.
My question is how could Justice Roberts favor Hobby Lobby given the fact that he ruled the ACA mandate a tax. That is, by his logic the contraceptive mandate in the ACA is a tax too.
The only logical way that I could see Roberts ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is to declare that they have some religious exemption to federal taxes. There is no religious exemption to taxes, right? If not and Roberts went down this road the legal can of worms that would be opened would be epic.
What am I missing?
I'm reading a little chatter here and there that the chances of Hobby Lobby getting a favorable ruling are pretty good. The likely ruling will be 5-4, you know the make-up.
My question is how could Justice Roberts favor Hobby Lobby given the fact that he ruled the ACA mandate a tax. That is, by his logic the contraceptive mandate in the ACA is a tax too.
The only logical way that I could see Roberts ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is to declare that they have some religious exemption to federal taxes. There is no religious exemption to taxes, right? If not and Roberts went down this road the legal can of worms that would be opened would be epic.
What am I missing?
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 5:39 pm
7
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:48 pm to GumboPot
quote:
What am I missing?
The Justics System in this country has been completely fricked since (at least) 1965.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:50 pm to TN Bhoy
I was hoping for a little more nuanced analysis.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:52 pm to GumboPot
quote:
That is, by his logic the contraceptive mandate in the ACA is a tax too.
I may be incorrect. But, i thought the PENALTY was ruled "tax". Not each individual regulation, etc.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:52 pm to GumboPot
Where are you hearing this chatter? Everything I read on the big legal blogs says Hobby Lobby will lose.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:55 pm to GumboPot
frick Roberts.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:06 pm to FalseProphet
Basically this: LINK
Damn that sucks.
So what you're reading Roberts will judge in favor of Sebelius?
quote:
the Court should join the majority of lower courts in backing religious expression, religious freedom, and economic
quote:
Everything I read on the big legal blogs says Hobby Lobby will lose.
Damn that sucks.
So what you're reading Roberts will judge in favor of Sebelius?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:08 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I may be incorrect. But, i thought the PENALTY was ruled "tax". Not each individual regulation, etc.
If you are right, that's an out Roberts could take.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:09 pm to GumboPot
quote:
There is no religious exemption to taxes, right?
The Amish are exempt from Social Security and Muslims are exempt from the individual mandate. So there are precedents.
This should be argued as an equal protection issue as well as a religious issue. There are a lot of medically necessary prescriptions that don't have a coverage mandate. Sebelius is giving preferential treatment to the pill. That should make it a 9-0 decision, but unfortunately we have a bunch of dishonest hacks on the Court.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:10 pm to Bestbank Tiger
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:13 pm to GumboPot
quote:
If you are right,
From NYTimes article at the time of the decision:
quote:
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.
The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.
Note that it was not a straight "Yes" to ACA. The concept was that if the penalty went away...the law was toothless and rendered moot. The finding of the penalty was a "tax" is what let the monster live.
But, there are arguments to be made on other points (as illustrated above)
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:16 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Thanks for the article.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:11 pm to GumboPot
quote:
here is no religious exemption to taxes, right? If not and Roberts went down this road the legal can of worms that would be opened would be epic.
that can of worms is nothing compared to previous rulings (citizens united, city of new london, roe v wade).
But it will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:19 pm to GumboPot
I make the bold prediction that SCOTUS uses this case to strike down the whole ACA.
It was what should have been done the first time, but Roberts didn't want to controversy of the supreme court going against the signature piece of legislation in Obama's presidency. ... or maybe he got blackmailed?
At this point, it has become clear that ACA is a complete failure, and the administration has abused the law (and the very concept of law) in the implementation.
What's more, I think even Obama would welcome the SCOTUS shooting down the obamacare at this point. There is really no other way out of the fiasco. If Roberts was blackmailed the first time, this time he will be told to rule against it.
As I said, it is a bold prediction... but if I am right, I will go back and bump this post daily for weeks.
It was what should have been done the first time, but Roberts didn't want to controversy of the supreme court going against the signature piece of legislation in Obama's presidency. ... or maybe he got blackmailed?
At this point, it has become clear that ACA is a complete failure, and the administration has abused the law (and the very concept of law) in the implementation.
What's more, I think even Obama would welcome the SCOTUS shooting down the obamacare at this point. There is really no other way out of the fiasco. If Roberts was blackmailed the first time, this time he will be told to rule against it.
As I said, it is a bold prediction... but if I am right, I will go back and bump this post daily for weeks.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:30 pm to M. A. Ryland
quote:
I make the bold prediction that SCOTUS uses this case to strike down the whole ACA.
Wow, I hope you're right. Do you see a legal angle with this prediction (to strike down the entire law) or are you just basing your bold prediction on a hunch?
quote:
but if I am right, I will go back and bump this post daily for weeks.
I hope that happens.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:35 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:
frick Roberts.
You know I feel for him. His opinion (that the penalty is a tax and congress can enact taxes) is correct. I think what happened is the leftist outflanked everyone on this - called it a penalty throughout the debates of the bill, even through the bill's signing; but then when it hit the SCOTUS they argued it was a tax.
From what I know of Roberts I think he is a fairly orthodox Catholic, but he ruled based on the laws on the books not his disdain or lack thereof of the law.
He is definitely getting flagellated for it.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:36 pm to M. A. Ryland
quote:
What's more, I think even Obama would welcome the SCOTUS shooting down the obamacare at this point. There is really no other way out of the fiasco. If Roberts was blackmailed the first time, this time he will be told to rule against it.
Don't see that happening in this case. The Origination Clause case is where that decision should occur--and even then, it would apply only to the individual mandate.
Obviously striking down just the mandate would create chaos, but the Court shouldn't care about that. It's the job of the legislative branch to clean up the mess. The Court should just rule on constitutionality.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:07 pm to GumboPot
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/7/15 at 7:09 am
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:23 pm to LSUwag
I hope Hobby Lobby wins this.
Posted on 3/20/14 at 10:57 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
Whatever happened to that rumored argument that the law could be deemed unconstitutional based on the way the bill was passed? Something to do with much of it originating in the Senate rather than the House (on budgetary/spending/tax issues)?
I figured if it were legit that it would have picked up steam by now. I'm not a constitutional scholar/lawyer, so my knowledge is limited on procedural issues.
ETA: I had heard rumors that Roberts justified the mandate as a tax so that it could be brought back and ruled unconstitutional given the Senate origins.
I figured if it were legit that it would have picked up steam by now. I'm not a constitutional scholar/lawyer, so my knowledge is limited on procedural issues.
ETA: I had heard rumors that Roberts justified the mandate as a tax so that it could be brought back and ruled unconstitutional given the Senate origins.
This post was edited on 3/20/14 at 10:59 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News