Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey Chief Justice, Whitehouse Says Its Not a Tax! (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The admin made their argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    based on politicized ideas.

    They can change their argument for politicized reasons.

    I have no problem with trying to win an election.

    They aren't calling the penalty a penalty right now to win a politicized argument in a clown show Supreme Court.

    They're doing it to win an election.

    I'm not going to sit here and pretend that either process (SCOTUS or elections) has the kind of integrity that defines "truth."

    •  Admin said it was use of taxing authority (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      addikell, annecros

      coffetalk is wrong as usual.

      •  I copied and pasted from their brief (0+ / 0-)

        it's hard to misquote when you do that.

        •  You misstate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          addikell

          Your quote is correct.

          It proves you wrong.

          •  I guess we disagree about the meaning of the words (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder, annecros
            The Minimum Coverage Provision Operates As A Tax Law
            The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as  a tax law.  
            the minimum coverage provision is valid not only as a tax in its own right,
            Silly me, I thought that when the Administration said "the minimum coverage provision operates as a tax law," they meant the minimum coverage provision operates as a tax law.

            And I thought that when they said the minimum coverage provision is valid as a tax in its own right, they meant the minimum coverage provision is valid as a tax in its own right.

            And here's some more quotes from the Administration:

            Accordingly, if the minimum coverage provision can reasonably be interpreted as a tax
            law
            —as it surely can be for the reasons given above—
            then it must be upheld as constitutional.
            When understood as an exercise of Congress’s power over taxation and read in the context of Section 5000A as a whole, subsection (a) serves only as the predicate for tax consequences imposed by the rest of the section.  
            First, neither the Treasury Department nor the Department of Health and Human Services interprets Section 5000A as imposing a legal obligation on
            applicable individuals independent of its tax-penalty consequences; each instead views it as only a predicate provision for the imposition of tax consequenses.
            You read that as the Administration saying it's not really a tax.  I don't. I read "tax law" as "tax law."  I read "tax consequences" as "tax consequences."  I read "a tax in its own right" as "a tax in its own right."

            I agree this was an ALTERNATIVE argument, made only in the even that the SCOTUS did not find it constitutional under the Commerce Clause.  But I don't see how you can say that the Administration made the argument that it's "not really a tax."  Unless you think a "tax law" is not really a tax law, and tax consequences are not really tax consequences.

            •  A tax law not subject to the AIA is . . .? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              divineorder

              I certainly read it as them saying it is not a tax because THAT IS WHAT THEY SAID!!!

              That is what they say now consistently with what they said then.

              Do I believe the statements are absurd? OF COURSE  I do.

              I think it is absurd that the AIA did not apply.

              We're not arguing about whether it is a tax. OF COURSE it is.

              We are arguing about what the Administration said.

              I think if you stopped and thought about it, you would find that you and I actually agree for once - the ridiculous contortions that the Administration made in its taxing authority arguments were absurd.

              OF COURSE it is a tax.

              But they did not say it was.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site