- 14,808
Well, here we go - day 1:
Supreme Court Health Care Law.pdf - File Shared from Box
So far, justices seem to feel that the anti-injunction act would not necessarily apply since they see that nowhere in the PPACA does the government use the word "tax" - instead, the word used in penalty.
Because Congress states that it will be collected "in the manner of a tax" doesn't make it a tax.
Ok, done reading Mr. Long's argument in which he basically made three arguments on why the Supreme Court shouldn't even hear this case. They grilled him in return and I believe it's apparent that they will indeed hear this case.
Interesting: it's being brought up that another possible consequence of not having health insurance is someone's parole being revoked. Some people on parole are under orders from the court to "break no laws." So, if they don't have health insurance and found in violation of the PPACA, would that be cause to revoke their parole?
General Verrilli brings up a very interesting point - that is all cases of where this doesn't apply; Indians, for example, only exempts them from paying the penalty but nowhere in the legislation does it specifically exempt them from obtaining coverage, making groups of people who don't have to pay the penalty "law breakers."
So, would this mean anyone who doesn't have to pay the federal penalty still has to check "yes" as to whether or not they've ever violated the law?
It's also pretty clear by now that the justices will not allow either side to call the penalty a tax.
Supreme Court Health Care Law.pdf - File Shared from Box
So far, justices seem to feel that the anti-injunction act would not necessarily apply since they see that nowhere in the PPACA does the government use the word "tax" - instead, the word used in penalty.
Because Congress states that it will be collected "in the manner of a tax" doesn't make it a tax.
Ok, done reading Mr. Long's argument in which he basically made three arguments on why the Supreme Court shouldn't even hear this case. They grilled him in return and I believe it's apparent that they will indeed hear this case.
Interesting: it's being brought up that another possible consequence of not having health insurance is someone's parole being revoked. Some people on parole are under orders from the court to "break no laws." So, if they don't have health insurance and found in violation of the PPACA, would that be cause to revoke their parole?
General Verrilli brings up a very interesting point - that is all cases of where this doesn't apply; Indians, for example, only exempts them from paying the penalty but nowhere in the legislation does it specifically exempt them from obtaining coverage, making groups of people who don't have to pay the penalty "law breakers."
So, would this mean anyone who doesn't have to pay the federal penalty still has to check "yes" as to whether or not they've ever violated the law?
It's also pretty clear by now that the justices will not allow either side to call the penalty a tax.
Last edited:
