I believe this opens the door for future laws that will allow people to be 'taxed' for compliance. Roberts and Kennedy are now the only judges on the court not to legislate from the bench and they are conservative. Liberals can't be swayed.
Page 197 line 15 "Subpart B -- Surcharge on High Income Individuals" "General Rule -- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to -- 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000." 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000 and 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000." Taxing the rich again.. Page 203 line 13: " NOT TREATED AS A TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES -- The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 5." Page 249 Line 17: "MISVALUED CODES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE " In General -- The Secretary shall -- periodically identify services as being potentially misvalued using criteria specified in clause (ii); and (II) review and make appropriate adjustmetns to the relative values established under this paragraph for services identified as being potentially misvalued under subclause (I)." http://www.examiner.com/article/health-care-bill-h-r-3200-read-it-online-now
Got an example of Supreme Court liberals legislating from the bench? Or Clarence Thomas doing anything at all? Nonsense. Almost half the cases have been decided unanimously, and only about 20% decided by a 5-to-4 vote.
The individual mandate, really isn't a mandate. It says that you must buy health insurance, if you don't you will assessed a "tax", but there is no prosecution, nor are there any repercussions if you do not pay that "tax". So technically it really isn't even a mandate, it's more like an empty threat.
let me rephrase. In voting records: The following my breakdown of most liberal to least liberal justices on the Supreme Court. Ginsberg: very liberal, consistently votes against the conservatives Sotomayor: consistently votes with the progressive bloc Kagan: has consistently voted with the liberal bloc since joining the bench, but still fairly unproven Breyer: usually votes with the liberal bloc, but has proven centrist in the past Kennedy: the swing vote; considered a conservative; sometimes votes with the liberal faction Alito: consistently conservative Roberts: consistently conservative Scalia: extremely conservative Thomas: extremely conservative Roberts put a dagger in the heart of conservatives today. His position has moved. Why are you picking on Thomas? Don't you pick on liberals, ever? No? I'm not Republican and have not voted Republlican since Bob Dole. I won't defend them. This is an amazing decision and one with reaching implications. I don't agree with it.
