Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

June 29, 2012

The ObamaCare Decision -- Will Post-Decision Statements Lead To Petition For Rehearing Under Rule 44?

Have Obama and the Democrats been too clever by half?

After all, yesterday ObamaCare was upheld by the Supreme Court under the theory that what the bill called a "penalty" is actually a tax -- a position taken by the Obama Administration and others in briefs and oral arguments.

Now that they have gotten a decision their way, some mighty curious statements have come out of Obama Administration officials, campaign surrogates for President Obama and Democrats in Congress. It seems they all want to have it both ways on the tax issue.

Take this example.

A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.

“Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.

“This is a penalty,” Patrick said. “It’s about dealing with the freeloaders.”

And this one.

“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” [Jay] Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One. …

Roberts wrote that the law “makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income.” …

“You can call it what you want,” Carney said, underlining Congressional Budget Office estimates that whatever you call it will affect only 1 percent of Americans. “It is not a broad-based tax.” “One percent of the population. One percent. You can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,” the spokesman said.

Or here on the White House website.

A number of Congressional Democrats have continued to make the same "penalty, not a tax" argument in the wake of the decision as well.

Of course, that means that there has been a fraud committed upon the American people, and upon the Supreme Court. After all, the above comments make it clear that the Obama Administration lied to the Supreme Court in both the briefs filed and the oral arguments made.

We the People cannot do anything about that issue until November -- but those who brought the lawsuits against ObamaCare have 24 more days to do something about it. They can act under Rule 44 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Here's the relevant part of that rule.

Rule 44. Rehearing

1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.

Rehearing requires an absolute majority of the court to agree to hear the case again. What's more, it requires one of those in the majority to agree to hear the case again.

Somebody like Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the controlling opinion in the case just decided. You know, the guy who accepted the Obama Administration argument that the penalty associated with the mandate was a tax and not a penalty -- a position now being rejected by those who presented the argument in the first place. If a petition for rehearing is submitted, he has a chance for a "do-over" -- and the option of pointing to the post-decision reversal by the Obama Administration as supporting the opposite conclusion from the one he initially made.

The dissent signed by Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito would then serve as the template for the new majority opinion. A concurrence by the Chief Justice would clarify that it was the rejection of the winning argument in the case that necessitated the rehearing and reversal. Far from being an act of political hubris, the striking down of ObamaCare would constitute an upholding of the dignity and objectivity of the Supreme Court. After all, if the party that claimed there was a tax has immediately declared that there is not tax, the integrity of the Court and the interest of justice requires that the decision based upon a fraudulent argument be reversed.

How likely is it that a petition for rehearing will be granted in this case? Not very likely -- there has not been such a rehearing in a case taken under appellate jurisdiction since 1969. The particular situation at hand in this case, however, could be one that requires (dare I say "mandates") reconsideration -- and reversal.

UPDATE: Interesting commentary and observations here -- be sure to read the comments, too.

UPDATE 2: This new post by me provides more evidence of why Rule 44 must be invoked.





|| Greg, 06:57 PM || Permalink || Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for The ObamaCare Decision -- Will Post-Decision Statements Lead To Petition For Rehearing Under Rule 44?

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/281175
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'The ObamaCare Decision -- Will Post-Decision Statements Lead To Petition For Rehearing Under Rule 44?'.

Comments on The ObamaCare Decision -- Will Post-Decision Statements Lead To Petition For Rehearing Under Rule 44?

That one line is worth all the the others put together,

"“You can call it what you want,” Carney said, underlining Congressional Budget Office estimates that whatever you call it will affect only 1 percent of Americans. “It is not a broad-based tax.” “One percent of the population. One percent. You can call it what you want, but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it,” the spokesman said."

That's quite a bit different than the crap they pushed to get the bill passed. As I recall the Republicans argued that there were something like 15% of Americans without insurance while the Dems argued a slightly higher figure. Now, after all is said and done the Dems claim only 1% of the public is in need. They why should the 99% who are taking care of business have to junk their system in favor of pure socialism? WHY????

|| Posted by T F Stern, June 29, 2012 08:18 PM ||

Taxpaying voters need to demand that Justice Roberts explains why he referenced the Gibbons v. Ogden case in the Obamacare opinion, seemingly ignoring two statements in the Gibbons opinion which indicate that his tax argument doesn't hold water.

Below are the two statements from Gibbons.  Note that the first statement clarifies, in one sentence, that not only does Congress not have the power to address public healthcare issues, healthcare being a 10th Amendment protected state power, but also that Congress has no power to interfere with intrastate commerce; FDR's activist justices got the Commerce Clause wrong in Wickard v. Filburn.

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."  --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Note that since Congress has no power to make public healthcare-related laws, Congress cannot make healthcare-related penalty laws, imo, any more than it can make healthcare-related tax laws.

Sadly, the corrupt federal government's power grab concerning Obamacare is delaying states whose legal majority voters would approve their state establishing a healthcare program, Massachusetts' RomneyCare for example, from doing so.

|| Posted by B. Johnson, June 30, 2012 03:57 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs