WWTBAM Bored

Republicans have won at least a temporary victory in their efforts to deprive millions of Americans of health insurance. The Texas federal judge hearing the case struck down the entire Affordable Care Act based on Congress's decision a year ago to remove the tax penalty for failure to comply with the individual mandate. He concluded that even though Congress did not repeal the rest of the law, the Act was inseverable so that Congress implicitly did what it failed to do explicitly.

I do not know yet whether the judge stayed his ruling in anticipation of an appeal. There will be one. --Bob

I haven’t yet found a link to the opinion so I can read it for myself, but based on descriptions of its reasoning it’s every bit as stupid as I expected. Pure result-motivated judicial activism. Fortunately, I’m pretty sure that even the conservative Fifth Circuit will reverse the ruling so the damage should be limited. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I haven’t yet found a link to the opinion so I can read it for myself.

Here you go:
State of Texas v. United States of America

My non-expert refutation:
Judge O'Connor states that the individual mandate and the penalty are separate provisions. That may have been true in the ACA as originally enacted. But the Chief Justice ruled that the individual mandate, based on the commerce clause, is unconstitutional (a decision that Bob hates), so only the penalty remained. Then Congress removed the penalty, so there's no individual mandate any more.

That misconception appears twice in the judge's opinion. In his mind, the plaintiffs have standing because the individual mandate is still part of the law. Also, he believes Congress had no intent to repeal the individual mandate, just the tax, even though that's not what Congress said.

He also thinks that the individual mandate penalty is inseverable from rest of law. But that's clearly not what Congress intended, since they repealed the penalty but not the whole law. And previous court cases have invalidated other parts of the ACA without overturning the whole law.

jarnon wrote:My non-expert refutation:
Judge O'Connor states that the individual mandate and the penalty are separate provisions. That may have been true in the ACA as originally enacted. But the Chief Justice ruled that the individual mandate, based on the commerce clause, is unconstitutional, so only the penalty remained. Then Congress removed the penalty, so there's no individual mandate any more.

That misconception appears twice in the judge's opinion. In his mind, the plaintiffs have standing because the individual mandate is still part of the law. Also, he believes Congress had no intent to repeal the individual mandate, just the tax, even though that's not what Congress said.

He also thinks that the individual mandate penalty is inseverable from rest of law. But that's clearly not what Congress intended, since they repealed the penalty but not the whole law. And previous court cases have invalidated other parts of the ACA without overturning the whole law.

That second part is his fundamental gross error of law. He focused on the intent of the 2010 Congress, which is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether Congress intended to repeal the rest of the Affordable Care Act in 2017 when it eliminated the penalty for the individual mandate. (I have no idea, by the way, how he concluded that the individual mandate is still part of the law at all since as far as I know there's no consequence whatsoever for violating it (other than being uninsured, of course).) And we know damn well that Congress didn't intend to repeal the rest of the Affordable Care Act when it zeroed out the penalty for violating the individual mandate because Congress didn't repeal the rest of the Affordable Care Act when it zeroed out the penalty for violating the individual mandate. --Bob

The entire thing is silly. Roberts said the ACA was constitutional (specifically the individual mandate) because is was a "tax". It is not. A tax is not a penalty for non-performance. It is a penalty. There never was a tax.

BackInTex wrote:The entire thing is silly. Roberts said the ACA was constitutional (specifically the individual mandate) because is was a "tax". It is not. A tax is not a penalty for non-performance. It is a penalty. There never was a tax.

As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that specific point. The Court has frequently justified "penalties" of exactly the sort you describe as exercises of Congressional taxing power. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:The entire thing is silly. Roberts said the ACA was constitutional (specifically the individual mandate) because is was a "tax". It is not. A tax is not a penalty for non-performance. It is a penalty. There never was a tax.

As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that specific point. The Court has frequently justified "penalties" of exactly the sort you describe as exercises of Congressional taxing power. --Bob

I'm not wrong. The Court is, if they call a penalty a tax. But you used the word "justified" and that is very different than "defines". Please think for yourself. Do YOU think a penalty is a tax?

BackInTex wrote:I'm not wrong. The Court is, if they call a penalty a tax. But you used the word "justified" and that is very different than "defines". Please think for yourself. Do YOU think a penalty is a tax?

Other penalties, like for IRA withdrawals, seem to me to be a tax. And paying for Social Security and Medicare, even though they’re retirement investments, are taxes too. The government uses various names like duty, tariff, fee, etc., but in my mind they’re all taxes. The only government payment that doesn’t seem like a tax is when you’re paying for a product or service like admission to a national park.

Locally, the fees for a parking permit, dog license and burglar alarm feel like taxes, but the fees for pool membership and trash pickup don’t. That’s just my opinion (see I can think for myself). But the only opinion that counts is John Roberts’s.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:The entire thing is silly. Roberts said the ACA was constitutional (specifically the individual mandate) because is was a "tax". It is not. A tax is not a penalty for non-performance. It is a penalty. There never was a tax.

As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that specific point. The Court has frequently justified "penalties" of exactly the sort you describe as exercises of Congressional taxing power. --Bob

I'm not wrong. The Court is, if they call a penalty a tax. But you used the word "justified" and that is very different than "defines". Please think for yourself. Do YOU think a penalty is a tax?

The SCOTUS has the final word, it doesn't matter what you think.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that specific point. The Court has frequently justified "penalties" of exactly the sort you describe as exercises of Congressional taxing power. --Bob

I'm not wrong. The Court is, if they call a penalty a tax. But you used the word "justified" and that is very different than "defines". Please think for yourself. Do YOU think a penalty is a tax?

The SCOTUS has the final word, it doesn't matter what you think.

Dred Scott would disagree.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
I'm not wrong. The Court is, if they call a penalty a tax. But you used the word "justified" and that is very different than "defines". Please think for yourself. Do YOU think a penalty is a tax?

The SCOTUS has the final word, it doesn't matter what you think.

Dred Scott would disagree.

No he wouldn't! He's dead...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: The SCOTUS has the final word, it doesn't matter what you think.

Dred Scott would disagree.

No he wouldn't! He's dead...

lb13

Have you seen the body? I haven't.

BackInTex wrote:Have you seen the body? I haven't.

It's right next to Jimmy Hoffa.