Justice Scalia: Individual Mandate Is Not A Tax

[Tx4obama]

Antonin Scalia Blasts Health Care Reform Decision, Says Supreme Court Is Not 'Political'

-snip-

... Scalia reiterated the view he expressed in a dissenting opinion from the health care reform case that President Barack Obama's signature legislation is not constitutional and its individual mandate cannot be viewed as a tax.

"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig," Scalia said. "It can't be a pig. And what my dissent said in the Affordable Care Act was simply there is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. It simply does not bear that meaning.”

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/antonin-scalia-health-care-reform_n_1715886.html

[Denninmi]

1. "there is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

However, there seem to be infinite ways to regard Scalia as a giant ass.

[zbdent]

2. Gotta love the conservative heads exploding on this ...

Bush43's favorite Supreme says it's constitutional, but a tax.

One of the guys who put Bush43 INTO office says it's not a tax ... but not constitutional, either.

And a "liberal" (in other words, what 20+ years ago would have been considered a moderate-right) Supreme voted that it was NOT constitutional.

[unblock]

3. it's mathematically equivalent to a tax. it's 100% exactly a tax in every way except the name.

if you make over a certain amount of income, you pay. just like income taxes.
you write your check out to the united states treasury. just like income taxes.
it's administrers by the internal revenue services. just like income taxes.
there are credits available to reduce the amount you pay. just like income taxes.

had they actually used the word "tax" in the legislation, ON WHAT BASIS COULD SCALIA POSSIBLY HAVE RESTED HIS CLAIM THAT IT'S NOT A TAX?

there's zero legitimate basis. in fact, the question would not have even come up.

the full entirety of his legal argument on this point is "neener, neener, you didn't say the magic word."

[Tx4obama]

4. I disagree. A penalty is not the same thing as a tax.

In my opinion it is more like a FINE than a tax.

[unblock]

5. in any event you're making a "fine" distinction:

first, the mathematical equivalence comes simply from the way it's phrased.

buy insurance, or else you pay (provided you make enough income) -- this sounds like a penalty or a fine.

pay (provided you make enough income), unless you buy insurance -- this sounds like a tax.

but it's exactly the same thing, mathematically. the exact same people pay the exact same amount under the exact same conditions.


in any event, a "tax" includes all manner of raising revenue, the law makes it clear that the word choice doesn't matter:



http://thelawdictionary.org/tax/

Definition of TAX

Taylor v. Boyd, G3 Tex. 533; Morgan’s Co. v. State Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Sup. Ct 1114, 30 L. Ed. 237; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 500, 50 Pac. 944; McClelland v. State, 138 Ind 321, 37 N. E. 1089; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa. 2S. 1 Am. Rep. 215; Bonaparte v. State, 03 Md. 405; Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. State, 49 Ohio St. 189. 30 N. E. 435, 10 I,. I!. A. 380; Illinois Cont. It. Co. v. Decatur. 147 U. S. 190, 13 Sup. Ct. 293, 37 L. Ed. 132. In a general sense, a tax is any contribution imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name

[PoliticAverse]

7. If it is clearly a tax how could the Supreme Court issue a ruling on it before anyone has paid it ?

As they are not permitted to do so by congress.

[quaker bill]

8. The congress cannot restrict the power of the Supreme Court.

Our system does not work like that. Secondly, the question was brought to them as an "unconstitutional penalty" before anyone paid it, so they ruled. They said it is not a penalty, but it is a tax and that taxes are broadly constitutional.

With minor semantic changes the challenge would never have made it to SCOTUS.

Altrenately, if they just taxed you directly and used the money to purchase insurance from the private sector for you, the same way they tax you to purchase weapons systems from private sector contractors, the question could not have even been brought, as the question would have challenged all government contracting for anything.

Social Security was challenged in a similar manner and survived as a tax. This is really old news.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Please reread the Constitution, especially the part that allows Congress to limit the scope

of the Supreme Court, a power Congress has used on occasion.

[quaker bill]

10. The question was not brought as a tax issue

It was ruled a tax.

[former9thward]

11. The question certainly would have come up.

Obama said it was not a tax as well as Democrats in Congress. It came up during oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

[unblock]

12. the president and congress are political and use particular words for political convenience.

and yes, it did come up during oral arguments and the administration's lawyers offered that it was a tax as a alternative rationale to why the law was constitutional (alternative to finding it constitutional under the commerce clause).n

[DJ13]

6. When they think about it, the cons will embrace it

Basically its now written in stone that a tax is the same as a penalty, which will be the perfect way to contest higher taxes (penalties) on the wealthy.

[unblock]

13. ask yourself this question: had a republican president decided to propose the rmoney health plan...

and the same case had arrived at the supreme court but with democrats challenging it and republicans defending it....

does ANYTHONE honestly believe that scalia would have knocked down as unconstitutional a right-wing health insurance plan put forth by a right-wing think tank and implemented in massachusetts by a right-wing governor and later put forth at the federal level by (in my hypothetical scenario) by a right-wing republican president?


the fact of the matter is, the REASON why scalia keeps giving these interviews and explaining his positions is because the REALITY is that his decisions are completely political, and if you just look at his track record, it would be obvious, so he needs to get out there and spread his bullshit so people think he's got a legitimate philosophy instead.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Well, he had nothing to say about it in 1994 when the ReTHUGS were pushing it as a tax.

A tax imposed on low- and middle-income Americans who can't afford health care insurance. Then, it was constitutional to them. Now that the knee-grow has imposed the same thing, it's suddenly a tax...(or maybe it isn't)...and it's unconstitutional either way.

[bemildred]

15. Right, and Scalia has judicial temperament.

He's making the circuits like any other political hack, I'll bet he's taking money for it too.