- 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
Will/can the SCOTUS use Jonathan Gruber's revelations about the ACA?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:50 am
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:50 am
Will the supreme court of the united states (for JEAUXBLEUX 
) use Jonathan Gruber's recent revelations about the ACA concerning "intent" of the word "state" when the Halbig case is adjudicated?
) use Jonathan Gruber's recent revelations about the ACA concerning "intent" of the word "state" when the Halbig case is adjudicated?
5
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:51 am to GumboPot
Thanks Gumbo Pot
Made me crack up
Made me crack up
This post was edited on 11/12/14 at 8:52 am
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:55 am to GumboPot
The revelation about hiding the tax aspect of the legislation makes Chief Justice Roberts look like a fool. They're human and I do think it will play a part in the June decision.
You won't see any mention of the deceit in the written decision but its there looming over the SCOTUS.
You won't see any mention of the deceit in the written decision but its there looming over the SCOTUS.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:57 am to GumboPot
quote:do you even legal writing and research bro?
supreme court of the united states
but I think we can all sense this moving towards repeal
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:03 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
You won't see any mention of the deceit in the written decision but its there looming over the SCOTUS.
Yeah this recent deceit Gruber video actually reinforces Robert's decision calling it a tax, IMO.
But there was also another Gruber video released after the Halbig decision at the circuit level that shows Gruber overtly describing the intent of writing that only "state run" exchanges can receive subsidies. I wondering if the supreme court will use that as evidence.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:04 am to DelU249
quote:
do you even legal writing and research bro?
I actually don't.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:04 am to GumboPot
In most appellate cases, courts generally only consider stuff on the record, i.e., that was introduced in the lower court.
But, the Supreme Court is a little different and can take Judicial notice of such things if they wish. Basically, the Supreme Court can pretty much do whatever they want to -- if they wish.
But, the Supreme Court is a little different and can take Judicial notice of such things if they wish. Basically, the Supreme Court can pretty much do whatever they want to -- if they wish.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:05 am to MMauler
quote:
But, the Supreme Court is a little different and can take Judicial notice of such things if they wish. Basically, the Supreme Court can pretty much do whatever they want to -- if they wish.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:08 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
The revelation about hiding the tax aspect of the legislation makes Chief Justice Roberts look like a fool.
No it doesn't. They hid it as a tax. He outed it as a tax.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:10 am to GumboPot
quote:
actually reinforces Robert's decision calling it a tax, IMO
I always thought Roberts got it right in calling it a tax. Now he knows the obama administration deliberately deceived the people when they referred to it as a fine. Roberts has to feel he played a part in allowing the deceit to pay dividends.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:11 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
No it doesn't. They hid it as a tax. He outed it as a tax.
No he didn't. The inspector general argued it was a tax before the SCOTUS. Roberts got it right by agreeing. Now he knows the deceit was intentional.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:13 am to GumboPot
If the SCOTUS got involved whenever politicians lied they would be the hardest working folks on the planet
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:14 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Roberts has to feel he played a part in allowing the deceit to pay dividends.
What? His role is to determine constitutionality AFTER the law is made.
He may have spent the legislative time knowing it's a tax, but was his role to go attend all the anger-filled town halls and tell the people it's a tax?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:19 am to Meauxjeaux
Yes, and I've said in prior posts that he got it right constitutionally. But here's the thing, there's a human aspect to all we do including members of the supreme court. Rpberts now knows that waiting to the supreme court arguements to claim it was a tax was an intentinal deception on the part of the people who wrote this law. bet your arse its there in his head when looking for a way to vote one way or the other in June.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:37 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:Ultimately, the Roberts' decision failed to address the real constitutional issue. The real question is does the government have the power to use the tax code as a tool to punish citizens?
I always thought Roberts got it right in calling it a tax. Now he knows the obama administration deliberately deceived the people when they referred to it as a fine.
The federal government was constituted with very limited powers to punish and inflict punitive property damages without due process and compensation. The states retained most of those powers by design.
Should the tax code be an end-around those limited powers--giving the government the power to punish individuals that don't act within its wishes?
I don't think so. It violates at trust long held by the citizens. Violating that trust greatly changes our relationship with government.
There are almost NO limitations on Congress' ability to use taxes against us to ruin our lives, and take our property.
The Constitution says your property cannot be taken without due process and compensation, but it does not proscribe a maximum tax rate.
Under Roberts' decision, the government could simply levy a 100% on your income for life unless you act as they wish--essentially making you a slave.
It's a tremendous power grab that has slipped through our system very quietly. The People got screwed on this one. We just don't know it yet.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:39 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
bet your arse its there in his head when looking for a way to vote one way or the other in June.
Yep, just like when a judge tells a jury to forget what you just heard.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:43 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
It's a tremendous power grab that has slipped through our system very quietly. The People got screwed on this one. We just don't know it yet.
Absolutely. Its nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. There's really no reason to call it anything else.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:51 am to Holden Caulfield
If you guys think things are going to just smoothly revert back to the status quo ante if the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, you're engaging in wishful thinking. It's going to be utter chaos, and everybody will be caught up in it, not just the ones who got the subsidies.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:55 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
if the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare
If SCOTUS rules against Obamacare in the Halbig case subsidies will be lost to states that have not implemented exchanges.
Can Obamacare survive after such a ruling? ...to be determined and is really not a question SCOTUS should be asking. That's up to congress to "fix" the law not SCOTUS.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 10:02 am to GumboPot
quote:
Can Obamacare survive after such a ruling? ...to be determined and is really not a question SCOTUS should be asking. That's up to congress to "fix" the law not SCOTUS.
As someone said upthread, they can use any damn criteria they want.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News