Does the Supreme Court have standing to end Obamacare? The son of stimulus? The Solyndra of Healthcare? And would they if they could, or would they quietly bow to the imperial president for lack of fortitude?
I'm not a lawyer, but like to play one when I find something worth asking real lawyers for advice on a hot topic. There's been so much talk about "having standing" that qualifies a case to be heard by SCOTUS. So lawyers, please help clear this up after I present my case.
There are two types of taxes allowed by law that are mutually exclusive: direct and indirect.
- Indirect taxes include excises, duties and imposts and must be uniformly imposed throughtout the country.
- Direct taxes are required to be imposed in accordance to the regulation of apportionment.
Did SCOTUS define which type of tax the individual mandate is when they approved Obamacare? Clearly Roberts' twisted logic to approve a tax based upon inactivity was pretzel logic, but did he and the Court declare which tax applied?
Since indirect taxes typically are imposed on transactions, and we get taxed for not making a transaction as in not purchasing insurance, then it must be a direct tax. And if it's a direct tax, it must be apportioned between the states.
There are too many delays and waivers to count by now, and some states participated in the expansion of Medicaid, while many didn't thanks to the scraps Justice Roberts threw under the table. Some can sign up and some can't in the so-called exchanges (code for, exchange what you have for what we deem you must have).
Nonetheless, there is no uniform or equal taxation among the states; some pay more depending on the number of providers in a state than others (I think) and clearly the states that chose to expand Medicaid will pay a higher chunk of taxes on that flow of money (I hope) and some states have more population than others and more people signing up. So how is that apportioned between the states?
Here's the crux: the Court giveth and the Court can take away. The Court ruled that the law was Constitutional under the Commerce Clause but doesn't it have an obligation to speak up as a co-equal branch to object to the bastardization of the law they approved? Isn't it incumbent upon them to find the Executive branch in contempt of their final opinion? Case in point (my emphasis):
Included within the general power to decide cases are the ancillary powers of courts to punish for contempts of their authority, to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction when authorized by statute, to make rules governing their process in the absence of statutory authorizations or prohibitions, to order their own process so as to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice and to protect their own jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in custody of law, to appoint masters in chancery, referees, auditors, and other investigators, and to admit and disbar attorneys.
Judicial power confers on federal courts the power to decide a case, to render a judgment conclusively resolving a case. Judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, and Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts.
I contend that "Congress violates the separation of powers" should apply equally to the Executive branch when it alters a final judgement, and the president has altered Obamacare too many times to count. Who gets taxed under the Commerce Clause is now so arbitrary that it violates the very basic premise for SCOTUS finding it Constitutional!
No one needs standing to stop this law as SCOTUS has the ultimate standing that the Executive branch has overstepped their final judgment. It should be case closed. Sadly Chief Justice Roberts won't act according to the supreme law of the land as he demonstrated, yet he may earn an asterick for all time and volumes of case study will be written ad nauseum.
So what's left of the "law of the land"? A shell? No, a shell game is more like it. The law is still intact, albeit approaching the death spiral due to all the delays, but it is hardly dead. All the mandates are simply delayed by fiat until the president is out of office. How convenient!
More importantly, there hasn't been any delay in the nearly two trillion dollars of new taxes over the next decade, including the medical tax device on manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies that attempt to make life-saving products. So the mandate of getting health insurance has been delayed but the taxes intended to pay for the law are firmly intact. And many of the taxes have absolutely nothing to do with healthcare or health insurance but are rather a Ponzi scheme to take from some to pay for this monstrosity.
Beyond the projected $2T cost over the next decade to pay for subsidies, thousands of government workers, and the federal exchanges among other things, the most honorus and ruinous regulation to the ecomony and job creation is the new definition of full-time work at 30 hours. That is what the House should focus on repealing if nothing else and should force a vote in the Senate.
What's left is a semi-hollowed out law that Democrats passed with the collusion of Big Insurance to line their pockets. It was a mutually beneficial agreement and what they saw as a win/win: Democrats for realizing their decades old dream of socialized healthcare in America; Big Insurance for a mandated stream of patients and dollars.
Some that analyzed the SCOTUS opinion at the time were seemingly clairvoyant and we now have a delay of the individual mandate yet the guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions are intact:
The irony is that Roberts didn’t have to rewrite the statute in order to issue a judicially minimalist opinion. He could have done what the Obama administration asked him to do: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, also sever the law’s guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions, and leave the rest of the law intact.
The administration just severed the individual mandate, the "tax" part of the bill per SCOTUS, with its new hardship exemptions yet insures are still required to sell policies to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions or other factors normally used to price plans.
Just like Stimulus 1.0; the government chose its favorite beneficiaries like Solyndra, and here we have another boondoogle for the chosen few, given the guaranteed profit to Big Insurance due to the risk corridors in the law. This would probably be minimal if Americans embraced the law and it was enacted fully without delays and exemptions for pretty much everybody now.
Was this the too-big-to-fail plan all along? A simple pay back plan to Big Insurance for championing the ACA, regardless of the outcome, like a redistribution of wealth from government via taxpayers to insurance companies? It was devised and past behind closed doors so we may never know but we know our country can't afford Stimulus 2.0.
The regulations for the risk-corridors were recently changed too and are no longer required to be revenue neutral per the law:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare already gives more than $1 trillion in subsidies to insurance companies over the next 10 years. President Obama’s extra-legal “fix” could now result in the Administration offering insurers a bailout totaling billions of dollars more.
Regardless of all the delays, this law is like a zombie and will keep coming back from the dead, until it's stopped in its tracks for good. The Founders were wise beyond
2010 years to make our system one of three co-equal branches to keep each branch in check.
SCOTUS should exert their power over the Executive branch for contempt of their final judgment on the law and declare it null and void. All pretenses of the reasoning for making it Constitutional no longer exist. SCOTUS, please KILL the BILL!