It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Honor93
i also know a whole bunch of Scientologists who absolutely refuse to engage doctors, all of them, so again, where exactly is this great need for doctors ??
hmmm, come to think of it, i wonder how they'll (Scientologists) be exempted from this penalty?
be that as it may, they are a popular and plentiful group 'round these parts.
I think using Scientologist is not such a good idea for using as an example. Them people are nuts.
yes, i understand this, however, are you realizing that ^^^^ this makes the whole "tax" invalid ??
There is a religious exemption for religion in the A.C.A.
If you are a part of a religion opposed to acceptance of benefits from a health insurance policy you will not be penalized for not having insurance.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The one thing I don't see any of the opponents of this bill arguing against is that the bill will decrease health insurance costs that will make it affordable for everyone to get insurance. They are just mad that everyone has to participate.
not really but if you think so, who am i to change your opinion ??
Originally posted by Classified Info
reply to post by Honor93
The SCOTUS has rendered their decision so I think that makes it about as valid as you can get.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
It has always been roughly 50/50 for those who supported/opposed. Recently that opposed percent has gone up due to Republican propaganda about the mandate being Unconstitutional. Well the SCOTUS decided that for them...so I suspect the percent of those that oppose this will go down.
Originally posted by nenothtu
No.
SCOTUS ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. What they have ruled to be constitutional is the levying of a new tax. The mandate was forcing purchase via the interstate commerce clause. Now there is no mandate to purchse, but a big stick tax to beat us with if we choose not to. we can still make that choice - there is no provision to enforce the mandate under interstate commerce.
If it goes back to being a "not tax" but a mandate instead as it was first billed and insisted to be the case by Dear Leader himself in order to sell it, then it becomes unconstitutional again.
Bait and switch, anyone?
edit on 2012/6/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
doesn't it bother you that Justice Kagan broke her promise to recuse herself for conflict of interest?
the simple fact that it has been classified as a "tax" makes it invalid as it was presented in the opposite. we are not subject to taxation without representation and that IS exactly what this has become.
No.
SCOTUS ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. What they have ruled to be constitutional is the levying of a new tax. The mandate was forcing purchase via the interstate commerce clause. Now there is no mandate to purchse, but a big stick tax to beat us with if we choose not to. we can still make that choice - there is no provision to enforce the mandate under interstate commerce.
If it goes back to being a "not tax" but a mandate instead as it was first billed and insisted to be the case by Dear Leader himself in order to sell it, then it becomes unconstitutional again.
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by R3KR
America is becoming like Greece.
We are so fkd if we do not vote obama out in Nov!
The day Reagan warned us about has finally arrived.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Freedom is officially dead!
Thanks Obama!
Thanks SCOTUS!
Thanks Congress!
In the letter, Mr. Fitton notes, “The failure of the Justice department to produce requested records in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time, the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to respond to requests for records and information from several members of Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA are being withheld from the American people. However, [as] the Court ultimately rules on the various legal challenges to the PPACA, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if the Court’s decision were overshadowed by controversy over your participation in the matter. It would leave a cloud hanging over the Court’s decision and could undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Court as an institution.”
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The penalty was always administered as a tax to be enforced by the IRS...it's in the bill...always has been...that is why the administration argued that point.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The mandate is still in effect...if you don't buy insurance, you are penalized with this tax. It doesn't matter if it isn't covered under the commerce clause...it is covered as a tax.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Bottom line...the entire law is upheld...it wasn't re-classified as a tax, it always was a tax...the bill isn't re-classified as a revenue bill, you still need a super majority to repeal it entirely.
................Despite the court ruling, there is still a chance that Republicans in Congress can repeal much of the law next year even if they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance—one of the key provisions of the law—was a tax, Republicans can use a procedure called "budget reconciliation" to pass a repeal bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. But this scenario relies on the Republicans' ability to win the White House, keep the majority in the House and gain enough seats in the Senate.............
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Please go find a source that says Kagan promised to recuse herself.
Federal law mandates that a Supreme Court justice must recuse herself from a case if she previously expressed an opinion about its merits while in government service.
At the time that President Obama signed his health-care reform law, Kagan was serving as President Obama’s solicitor general and President Obama had not yet nominated her to the Supreme Court.
Kagan’s job as solicitor general was to defend the administration’s position in federal court cases. On March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed his health-care reform law—and seven weeks before Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court--Florida and Virginia filed suit against the law in federal court challenging its constitutionality. Also on that day, 12 states joined Florida in its suit against the law.
Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general at a time when Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishment was being constitutionally challenged in a federal court system at whose pinnacle she now sits--on the very panel that must ultimately settle the challenges.
In a questionnaire that she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to her confirmation hearings, Kagan said she would abide by the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455, a federal law governing the recusal of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.
“If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record,” Kagan told the committee in the questionnaire. “I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §24 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §20, 36 Stat. 1090).
Section 24 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., applied only to district judges. The revised section is made applicable to all justices and judges of the United States.
The text of 28 U.S.C. 455 states: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
The law goes on to define a “proceeding” to include the “pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.”
Prof. Ronald Rotunda of the Chapman University School of Law, a legal ethics expert, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kagan’s confirmation hearings that 28 U.S.C. 455 requires Kagan to recuse herself from any case that she so much as expressed a verbal opinion about when serving as solicitor general.
Ms. KAGAN. Senator Leahy, I think certainly as I said in that
questionnaire answer that I would recuse myself from any case in
which I have been counsel of record at any stage of the proceedings,
in which I have signed any kind of brief. And I think that
there are probably about ten cases—I have not counted them up
particularly, but I think that there are probably about ten cases
that are on the docket next year in which that is true, in which
I have been counsel of record on a petition for certiorari or some
other kind of pleading. So that is a flat rule.
In addition to that, I said to you on the questionnaire that I
would recuse myself in any case in which I have played any kind
of substantial role in the process. I think that that would include—
I am going to be a little bit hesitant about this because one of the
things I would want to do is talk to my colleagues up there and
make sure that this is what they think is appropriate, too. But I
think that that would include any case in which I have officially
formally approved something. So one of the things that the Solicitor
General does is approve appeals or approve amicus briefs to be
filed in lower courts or approve interventions.
Originally posted by sonnny1
Spot on, for even the most vocal Obama supporter,or someone who "thinks" this is actually a Healthcare bill.
You cant paint this picture ANY better,then how you wrote it, nenothtu...
I for one, will NOT be supporting this.
Originally posted by Honor93
doesn't it bother you that Justice Kagan broke her promise to recuse herself for conflict of interest?
we are not subject to taxation without representation and that IS exactly what this has become....
because, without that, there is no representation of the people in this legislation.
Originally posted by Classified Info
No it does not bother me at all because Judge Kagan never promised to recuse herself.