[VN Boards Archive]
Welcome to the Vault Network forum archive.

This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least 20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per page).

Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50 topics per page, while others deemed of historical signifigance may be archived in their entirety.

We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in lieu of that.

Please enjoy the archive.
~ Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.
Author Topic: Ubama Lawyer Laughed At In Supreme Court For Dubbing Individual Mandate Both A “Penalty” And “Tax”
combat_mage_sc 
Title: Hi. My name is Combat and i'm an alcoholic.
Posts: 41,508
Registered: Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 266,617
 Subject: Ubama Lawyer Laughed At In Supreme Court For Dubbing Individual Mandate Both A “Penalty” And “Tax”
On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.”

The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.

The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.

The remark underscores the fine line the White House is walking in its argument. On one hand, it says the backstop is not a tax, because that could subject it to the Anti-Injunction Act — the focal point of Monday’s arguments — and delay a ruling to at least 2015. On the other, they claim that the power to impose a penalty derives from Congress’ broad taxing power. That’s in part because calling it a tax makes defending the mandate easier — Congress’ power to levy taxes is less in question than its power to require people to do things.

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether refusing to buy insurance would constitute breaking the law, to which Verrilli responded that if people “pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.” That caught the attention of Justice Stephen Breyer.

“Why do you keep saying tax?” Breyer interjected, to more laughs.

The justices, particularly the four Democratic-appointees, and Justice Antonin Scalia, appeared skeptical that the fine constitutes a tax.

http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court

chicken

 

-----signature-----
.................._@@@__
......_____//____?___\________
- ---o--------BEER-POLICE----@)
-----`--(@)======+====(@)--
Link to this post
© 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Powered by PHP