Justice Roberts: I Am A Coward

[Ghost of Cutten]

FWIW, a penalty is clearly not a tax. Otherwise littering fines, speeding fines etc would be taxes, instead of fines. Fines are punitive by intent, taxes are just there to raise revenue, or in some cases to apportion cost to socially harmful behaviours (e.g. taxing polluting activities more than green activities; taxing cigarettes more than fresh fruit etc).

Judge Roberts' reasoning is clearly nonsense, regardless of your political views.

 

[Ricter]

Lol.

"Now here's David Brooks, who rightly thinks there's a lot that's wrong with the basic way health care is delivered in the United States:

Liberals tend to argue that major structural changes can be made within the framework of Obamacare. Republicans tend to believe that the perverse incentives can only be corrected if we repeal Obamacare and move to a defined-benefit plan — if we get rid of the employer tax credit and give people subsidies to select their own plans within regulated markets.

"In other words, Brooks wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with . . . Obamacare. Or rather with a more vigorously implemented version of Obamacare."

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

FWIW, a penalty is clearly not a tax. Otherwise littering fines, speeding fines etc would be taxes, instead of fines. Fines are punitive by intent, taxes are just there to raise revenue, or in some cases to apportion cost to socially harmful behaviours (e.g. taxing polluting activities more than green activities; taxing cigarettes more than fresh fruit etc).

Judge Roberts' reasoning is clearly nonsense, regardless of your political views.

I've always thought a lot of fines and penalties were back door taxes. Guess ol judge Roberts is correct in his thinking.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Ricter:

Lol.

"Now here's David Brooks, who rightly thinks there's a lot that's wrong with the basic way health care is delivered in the United States:

Liberals tend to argue that major structural changes can be made within the framework of Obamacare. Republicans tend to believe that the perverse incentives can only be corrected if we repeal Obamacare and move to a defined-benefit plan — if we get rid of the employer tax credit and give people subsidies to select their own plans within regulated markets.

"In other words, Brooks wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with . . . Obamacare. Or rather with a more vigorously implemented version of Obamacare."

LOL !!!

 

[nutmeg]

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

It's obvious that people are not objectively judging the law or legal opinion, but simply ignoring it and favouring whichever legal 'interpretation' fits their political biases. This applies both to most of the Supreme Court, and to most of the people on this thread (or in the general public).

If this were not the case, then legal opinions would be poorly correlated with political views. The reality is unfortunately the opposite. It would be refreshing if people assessed a legal case purely on its merits, without bringing their partisan political bias to the table.

bingo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFdisFGSBz0

 

[jem]

1. you seem to be arguing that justices should take their personal opinions out and find according to the law or the constitution. Which sounds like strict construction or original intent. Dems hate that idea just ask Judge Bork.


2. Now, penalty vs tax... This is a good argument.

here is the other side....

If the govt gets lobbied by private industry and private industry pretty much says if you wish for us to cover more people we need to make sure we have more revenue. And the govt decides to create more revenue by direct people to pay money to private private industry... is that really not a tax? It's a crooked tax... but its a tax.

I don't really care about tax vs penalty, the ruling makes an abortion of jurisprudence.

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

FWIW, a penalty is clearly not a tax. Otherwise littering fines, speeding fines etc would be taxes, instead of fines. Fines are punitive by intent, taxes are just there to raise revenue, or in some cases to apportion cost to socially harmful behaviours (e.g. taxing polluting activities more than green activities; taxing cigarettes more than fresh fruit etc).

Judge Roberts' reasoning is clearly nonsense, regardless of your political views.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Small business, Evangelical, Mormon and Muslim churches, Boy Scouts, rank and file military, farming/ranching, oil/gas/mining industries and Broadway theater(ok, just kidding).

It's a legitimate question, but do you honestly dispute that the legal profession is not significantly more liberal than the country as a whole?

ps. congratulations, you survived the purge and are not on ignore.

Okay, I will give you small business, and the churches, and argi/horticulture, and energy.

Boy scouts and military are about to reverse their cultural bans on gays. That is distinctly liberal.

As far as the legal profession goes, we have more people locked up for non-violent crimes than any other nation on earth. That does not sound very liberal to me.

 

[Ricter]

Can't win 'em all, gents. You won Citizens United, be happy.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Okay, I will give you small business, and the churches, and argi/horticulture, and energy.

Boy scouts and military are about to reverse their cultural bans on gays. That is distinctly liberal.

As far as the legal profession goes, we have more people locked up for non-violent crimes than any other nation on earth. That does not sound very liberal to me.

Blame the state and federal legislatures, not the legal profession, for the War on Drugs. I would suppose most lawyers would favor decriminalization of most drugs. I do and I am hardly liberal.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Ricter:

Can't win 'em all, gents. You won Citizens United, be happy.

Would you give up Obamacare if CU would go away also? I'm not sure. The health of our democracy vs the health of the citizens.