John Podhoretz argues in his column this morning that Chief Justice Roberts contradicted himself in his ruling that the PPACA’s individual mandate survives constitutional scrutiny because it can be construed as a tax:
First, on beginning at the bottom of page 14 of his opinion, Roberts talks about the question of whether or not the mandate qualifies as a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, thus meaning that any lawsuit challenging it would lack standing until a tax is actually assessed:
Read more: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-roberts-contradict-himself-on-the-tax-issue/
Like many people who read yesterday’s decision, I will go to my grave unable to reconcile the plain fact that on page 15 Chief Justice John Roberts says the bill’s mandate to buy health insurance isn’t a tax — only to say on page 35 that it is a tax.Is it really possible that the Chief Justice made such a base contradiction that all the world can see? Well, let’s see what Goldberg is talking about to figure out if that it’s true.
In a beautiful turn of phrase, the four dissenting justices said Roberts’ contortion on this matter “carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.”
Roberts’ grotesque offense against elementary logic is so bald-faced, I’m almost tempted to believe he left it there on purpose, either out of perversity or as a not-so-hidden message that he had ulterior motives for upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
First, on beginning at the bottom of page 14 of his opinion, Roberts talks about the question of whether or not the mandate qualifies as a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, thus meaning that any lawsuit challenging it would lack standing until a tax is actually assessed:
Read more: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-roberts-contradict-himself-on-the-tax-issue/
No comments:
Post a Comment