Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (23931)	7/1/2012 2:58:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The Supreme Court is wrong: ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL While it may seem unconstitutional to you or me, the reality is that it is, de facto, constitutional, from now on. I accept the Court's decision though I don't like it. I think Roberts was looking at what he perceived as a bigger picture, and while his logic may not appear impeccable to me, I don't feel compelled to second-guess Roberts' view. The apparent hypocrisy in Obama saying the penalty isn't a tax then arguing before the Court that it IS a tax is not a matter for the Court to consider. Had the legislative history specifically dodged the issue of whether it is a tax, I could see the Court intervening; but it didn't. They specifically implemented it as a tax, and the Court has consistently held since the landmark tax case of Gregory v. Helvering (1935) that in tax matters, one must look to the substance of a transaction rather than its form, and this includes the very definition of a tax as well as the transactions that form the underpinning of tax determination. No amount of the president's claiming it isn't a tax can change the substance, just as Mrs. Gregory's proclamation of form over substance failed to help her case. All the partisan rancor aside, I suspect Roberts made his decision based solely on his interpretation of the law and that is, after all, what he was hired to do. He upheld his belief in smaller government without throwing Congress under the bus; if voters want to fix Congress then they should do so. It isn't the Court's role to tell the Congress how to run the government.