Mad Libs! "President Barack Obama’s ____ law owes its survival to the ____ finding that the act’s____ is a ____, and therefore ____."
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. This option is clearly not feasible for Darth Hightop: "Obama doesn't believe it is, but the Supreme Court states it can be construed as one."
It's a tax according to only Justice Roberts; all four liberal justices made it clear that they dissented on this point. That his vote was the standing vote is a sad reflection of how partisan differences have seeped into even the highest (and supposedly most impartial) institutions of the land.
Must spread rep. Any thoughts on turning this into one of the old "basso threads" where nothing but funny pictures are posted?
The real question is why Hightop feels that he is entitled to starting multiple threads on the same subject in within a few hours of each other. Especially when he has no idea what he's talking about (as usual) and refuses to actually answer questions posed to him in the original thread that he started.
A lot of conservatives see rational consideration as weakness. If you're right, you must be ABSOLUTELY 100% RIGHT IN EVERY DETAIL, and if you're wrong then YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG IN EVERY DETAIL. There's no room in their worldview for anything but rock logic. Everything is an opposition between two absolutes.
Gotta give credit where it's due. basso himself used the "Sith" comment in response to one of my posts a few months ago. Interestingly enough, I'm finding basso more or more reasonable every day compared to the new breed of conservatives.
Your point being? Obama and the Supreme Court agree on the constitutionality of PPACA. Obama believes it falls under the Commerce Clause. Supreme Court (or more specifically Justice Robers) believes it falls under Congress' power to levy a tax. The fact that you're characterizing this disagreement as a "lie" is utterly devoid of logic.
The SC ruled that it falls under Congress' power to levy a tax. To then claim it is something else is a lie. If it is going to be enforced as a tax - then that's what it is.
Roberts bent over backwards to find a way to go against the conservatives and side with the liberals ... telling.
Disagreeing with the Supreme Court is considered lying! Who knew?! Thank you for showing us the way Dear Leader Hightop!
Technically, the SC ruled on the law's constitutionality, not on whether the penalty is a tax. Like I said in the other thread, you're awfully quick to accept everything stated in the ruling as immutable truth. I find that awfully hypocritical considering your usual outbursts against the establishment. Maybe you're a closet collectivist.
Roberts found a way to side with Obama and save the court's credibility (and his own) by calling it a tax.
Tax is something that is levied against something tangible. You pay a tax for using an airport, or for a road (toll), or against your income or buying a product from a store. A penalty is something that gets triggered when you don't follow the rules. A traffic ticket is a penalty. Failing to have a permit can result in a penalty. Failing to have auto insurance can result in a penalty. And failing to have health insurance is thus a penalty. SC ruling was bazaar. Roberts didn't want to overturn such a big piece of legislation as it would have had serious reprecussions, but he didn't want to open up the commerce clause and too much federal power either. So he came up with this hack.
