The War on Women – Tea Party Nation

The War on Women – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

A_Pw2EzCcAA5H99.png largeThere are actually two wars on women going on right now.  One is a faux war, created by the media.  The other is a very real war.  But since the left launches the second war on women, don’t expect to hear much about it from the drive-by media.

 What is this second war on women that no one is talking about and why should we conservatives be talking about it, regardless of whether we are male or female?

 Joe Salazar is a Colorado Democrat.  Perhaps that is the same thing as saying he is a complete sexist, raging idiot.

 Colorado was considering a bill that would forbid concealed carry permit holders from carrying their weapons on the grounds of colleges and universities.

 Salazar said that women really didn’t need guns to protect themselves if they were afraid.  After all, they might not get raped.   Or they might go off and just start shooting people for no good reason because, well who knows why.

 Women of Colorado rejoice!  Don’t worry your pretty little heads about making decisions about your self-defense because you have sexist pigs like Joe Salazar to make those decisions for you!

 Salazar is not the only idiot in Colorado.  The University of Colorado is like almost every other college and university in the nation.  Liberals control it and of course they don’t like guns.

 So what is a woman supposed to do if she is stalked or threatened by a rapist?  These bright lights think a whistle is a great defense.    Forget bringing a knife to a gunfight, these dim bulbs want you to bring a little piece of plastic to a gunfight.  Is it any wonder why American students at all levels constantly fail when compared to foreign students?

afreepeople Our children and young adults are being taught by morons.

 Conservatives learn from not only their mistakes but also other people’s mistakes.  We learned that banning guns in certain areas like college campuses does not make them safer.  It only makes it easier for criminals. 

 If a criminal is going to come on campus to rape a woman do you think he is really going to worry about another law that prohibits him from carrying a gun?  No, he is going to be jumping up, giving Joe Salazar high fives, thanking him for making the campus a target rich zone and an area where he can prey on victims without fear of running into someone who is armed and can fight back.

 Conservatives must fight these stupid laws but we also must realize something else.  Self-defense is our personal responsibility.

 whydoUnfortunately for real Americans, we are facing the increasing reality that the left is stripping our 2nd Amendment rights from us.  Perhaps even worse, the Supreme Court is becoming less than friendly for conservatives.    Cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the gun control laws of the District of Columbia.  Heller was a 5-4 decision. 

 After the way Chief Justice John Roberts folded like a cheap black robe, there is no way any of us should feel comfortable that the Supreme Court will protect our 2nd Amendment Rights.

 The battle for the 2nd Amendment is a battle we cannot lose.  The 2nd Amendment is not about personal protection.  It is about preserving liberty and stopping government tyranny.

 If you live in a jurisdiction that has repealed the 2nd Amendment, you need to think about alternatives for self-defense if you cannot carry a gun.

 Martial arts is one of those alternatives you should think about.  Martial arts has a couple of benefits.  The first is it is physical fitness.     We have to deal with the fact Obamacare is not going to be repealed.  The Republicans have made no serious effort to repeal Obamacare.  They have not even tried an incremental approach to repeal. 

 bummercare-e1352561798629The best way to fight Obamacare and avoid the death panels that will be there, regardless of what the Obama Regime says, is to be on offense.  So much disease is preventable.  If you smoke, stop smoking.  If you are overweight, change your diet and lose weight.  Get out and exercise.

 What do you do if you cannot carry your gun with you?  Are you just going to be another victim?

 Martial arts, particularly those that started in Asia were started as a response to a population that was disarmed.  If the population could not fight with weapons, they had to find another way to fight back. 

coward2 Today there are a number of very effective martial arts that will teach you how to defend yourself.  You do not have to be a teenager to take these martial arts.  Some of them emphasize the ability to fight back without being in fantastic shape.

 Combat Hapkido is one of them.  Being a small person is actually a benefit in this martial art. 

 We must fight for our rights.  But we have lost too many of those fights.  We have too many low information voters that have put Barack Obama back in office. 

 While we must fight for the best, we must also prepare for the worst.  Unfortunately for America, right now under Obama’s America, we are living in the worst of times.


Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance

Back in April, I explained that I would accept a tax increase if “the net long-run effect is more freedom, liberty, and prosperity.”

I even outlined several specific scenarios where that might occur, including giving the politicians more money in exchange for a flat tax or giving them additional revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

But I then pointed out that all of those options are unrealistic. And I’ve expanded on that thesis in a new article. Here’s some of what I wrote for The Blaze.

The no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform generates a lot of controversy. With record levels of red ink, the political elite incessantly proclaims that all options must be “on the table.” This sounds reasonable. And when some Republicans say no tax hikes under any circumstances, there’s a lot of criticism about dogmatism. Theoretically, I agree with the elitists.

So does that make me a squish, the fiscal equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts?

Nope, because I’m tethered to the real world. I know that there is zero chance of getting a good agreement. Once you put taxes “on the table,” any impetus for spending restraint evaporates.

But even though I’m theoretically open to a tax hike, I am a de facto opponent of tax increases for the simple reason that we will never get a good deal. We won’t get sustainable spending cuts. Not even in our dreams. We won’t get real entitlement reforms. Even if we hold our breath ‘til we turn blue. And we won’t get the “Simpson-Bowles” tax reform swap, where taxpayers give up $2 of deductions in exchange for $1 of lower tax rates. Let’s not kid ourselves. In other words, reality trumps theory. Yes, there are tax-hike deals that would be good, but they’re about as realistic as me speculating on whether I’d be willing to play for the New York Yankees, but only if they guarantee me $5 million per year.

I then point out that a budget deal inevitably would lead to bad policy – just as we saw in 1982 and 1990.

Here’s the bottom line: There is no practical way to get a good deal from either the Democrats in the Senate or the Obama Administration. Notwithstanding the good intentions of some people, any grand bargain would be a failure that leads to higher spending and more red ink, just as we saw after the 1982 and 1990 budget deals. The tax increases would not be relatively benign loophole closers. Instead, the economy would be hit by higher marginal tax rates on work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. And the entitlement reform would be unsustainable gimmicks rather than structural changes to fix the underlying programs. Ironically, when a columnist for the New York Times complained that Republicans were being unreasonable for opposing tax hikes, she inadvertently revealed that the only successful budget deal was the one in 1997 – the one that had no tax hikes!

The last sentence is worth some additional commentary. As I explained in a previous post, the only bipartisan budget agreement that generated a balanced budget was the 1997 pact – and that deal lowered taxes rather than increasing them.

Some people try to argue that Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike deserves some of the credit, but I previously showed that the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget admitted – 18 months later! – that the nation would have triple-digit budget deficits for the foreseeable future.

What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s.

And when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink.

Obama, SCOTUS, Taxes and Your Freedoms – Chuck Norris –

Senate Passes Insurance Industry Aid Bill

Obama, SCOTUS, Taxes and Your Freedoms – Chuck Norris –

Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold Obamacare‘s individual mandate (indictment) to collect more taxes from you and me. President Barack Obama’s taxation shell game, which flies in the face of the freedoms we celebrate this week, is just one more reason his presidency and Obamacare need to be overturned this November.

Chief Justice John Roberts wasn’t kidding when he offered the commentary about the court’s ruling: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Obamacare is taxation unleashed!

Despite the fact that in 2009, Obama repeatedly denied to ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos that Obamacare’s individual mandate was equated with increased taxes, the Supreme Court defined the legislation as just that — more taxation.

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked by a reporter whether the financial penalty for not complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate is, in fact, a tax, she retorted: “Call it what you will. … This is a very good thing for the American people.”

Pelosi, who helped Obama ramrod the legislation, and Obama were frolicking like two kids in a candy store when they learned about the hallmark SCOTUS decision. But I doubt that middle-class taxpayers will be so ecstatic when they are footing the bill every year for another socialized medicine program.

On Thursday, CNN even confessed: “In 2014, the penalty (for not having medical insurance) will be no more than $285 per family or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975 or 2 percent of income. And by 2016, the penalty would be up to $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.”

Bloomberg reported: “Some of the largest levies and fees in the 2010 law take effect in 2013. In all, the law is projected to raise an estimated $813 billion in revenue over 10 years to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That figure includes penalties under the individual mandate, which the court ruled is constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.”

The fact is that behind closed doors with the Supreme Court justices and out of view of the public, the legal teams from the Obama administration pitched Obamacare as a tax. Obama and his legal eagles lied to the public to get the legislation passed on Capitol Hill and then described it as a tax to pass it before SCOTUS. They knew that the court knows that the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in order to carry out its duties, and that was their ticket to manipulate their way to victory.

On March 26, the first day of Obamacare arguments before the Supreme Court, Fox News reported that a top Obama lawyer was chided by the justices for calling the fine for not purchasing insurance both a “penalty” and a “tax.”

Even U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli repeatedly used the phrase “tax penalty” to describe noncompliance with the individual mandate. Then Justice Samuel Alito rebuffed, “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

Verrilli answered Justice Elena Kagan’s question of whether noncompliance with the individual mandate would result in breaking the law by saying that if people “pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.” That reference caught the attention of Justice Stephen Breyer, who interjected, “Why do you keep saying tax?”

To require people to pay a penalty for not buying health insurance is a tax. And I vehemently disagree with Pelosi that Obamacare’s new taxes are “a very good thing for the American people” — in or out of a recession — simply because more government regulations and taxation restrict our freedoms and pocketbooks.

The actions of Obama’s federal government are diametrically opposed to those of America’s Framers, who adopted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, wrote roughly 40 years later, in 1816, to Samuel Kercheval:

“We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Does that not describe Obama’s fundamental transformation of America to a T?

Happy birthday, America! We still are celebrating and fighting for your founding principles and freedoms!

Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare –

Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare –

The two top Republicans in Congress vowed on Sunday to push ahead with efforts to repeal President Barack Obama’s healthcare law despite the Supreme Court upholding it, but the White House said it is time to stop fighting and start implementing it.

“This has to be ripped out by its roots,” House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said of the 2010 law on the CBS program “Face the Nation.” Boehner added: “We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety.”

The House, controlled by Republicans, has scheduled a vote on July 11 to repeal the law. The Democratic-led Senate, as it has done in the past, is certain to block any repeal legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the law, Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement and the most sweeping overhaul since the 1960s of the unwieldy U.S. healthcare system. The ruling was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s four liberals.

“I think the thing that the American people want is for the divisive debate on healthcare to stop,” White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I think that what we need to do is get on with the implementation now, and that’s what we intend to do,” Lew added.

The healthcare law battle promises to figure prominently in the Nov. 6 election in which Obama is challenged by Republican Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor pushed through a state healthcare overhaul with provisions similar to Obama’s plan.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed public support for the law rising to 48 percent after the ruling from 43 percent before the court’s decision.

The U.S. system, unlike other rich countries, is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs. The United States pays more for healthcare than any other country, but about 50 million of the roughly 310 million Americans still have no insurance.

The law was meant to bring coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured and slow soaring medical costs. Critics deride the law as “Obamacare” and say it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and the business of the states.



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans will insist that the Democrats who control the chamber hold a vote before the election on repealing the law.

“If I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of ‘Obamacare’ will be job one,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

McConnell said he would use a process called “reconciliation” in the 100-member Senate to permit a simple majority to pass a repeal of the law rather than the customary 60 votes. McConnell had criticized Senate Democrats for using that same process in passing the bill in 2010.

“Yes, that could be done with a simple 51 votes,” he said.

“This is the single worst piece of legislation that’s been passed, certainly in modern times. And it will be an issue, a big issue, in the fall election,” McConnell said.

“We’ve got one last chance here to defeat Obamacare. We can do that in the November election,” added McConnell.

McConnell labeled the law’s “individual mandate” provision – requiring most people to obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty – a middle-class tax increase.

Asked whether a similar provision in Romney’s healthcare law in Massachusetts was also a middle-class tax increase, McConnell said, “Well, I think Governor Romney ought to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts.”

The White House and fellow Democrats refuse to label as a tax the law’s penalty on people who decline to obtain health insurance – even though the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” only because it was permissible under the congressional power to levy taxes.

“It’s a penalty. It’s something that only 1 percent of people – who can afford insurance and choose not to get – it will pay,” Lew said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Nancy Pelosi, the top House Democrat, added on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “It is a penalty for free riders.”

Asked what Republicans would do – if they succeed in repealing Obama’s law – to provide coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently with no insurance, McConnell said: “That is not the issue. The question is how can you go step by step to improve the American healthcare system. It is already the finest healthcare system in the world.”

“We’re not going to turn the American healthcare system into a western European system,” he added, referring to government-run systems that provide near universal coverage.

What Just Happened to the Rule of Law? – Tea Party Nation

What Just Happened to the Rule of Law? – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Following the Obamacare decision, The Heartland Institute’s Maureen Martin, a Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs, said, “Today’s decision will go down in infamy. It marks the moment when we all lost our freedom because the Supreme Court drew a road map to guide those dedicated to imposing a totalitarian, statist government on the American people.”

A Heartland colleague, Peter Ferrara, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court and a Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy, said “The Supreme Court of the United States just endorsed the most fundamental dishonesty of our politics today. The President intimidated Chief Justice John Roberts like Hugo Chavez intimidates the Venezuelan Supreme Court. The rule of law is now dead. The American people have only one more chance now to save their country.” Heartland is a non-profit, free market think tank.

A lot of Americans may begin to feel like the Jews who lived in Nazi Germany. On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed the Nuremberg laws. They were intended to make life in Germany so unpleasant that it would force them to emigrate. Those who could escaped what would later materialize as the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of all the Jews of Europe. One of them was Albert Einstein who found sanctuary in the United States.

To give you a taste of what it was like, the Reichstag’s Nuremburg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and Aryan Germans. Intercourse between Jews and “subjects of German or kindred blood” was forbidden. Jews were forbidden to fly the Reich and national flag. It did not take long for Jewish teachers, lawyers, and physicians to be stripped of their right to work.

What does that have to do with Obamacare? Americans who could rely on the political system to moderate and even reduce taxation now know that the December 28, 2012 Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may tax anything, including behavior. Americans no longer are free to determine what they wish to purchase or not. Either they follow the dictate of the federal government or they will be fined.

Obamacare has now transformed the United States into a police state.

Twenty-seven U.S. States joined together to oppose Obamacare and they and the other twenty-three now know that they are no longer separate and sovereign republics, but must yield to the federal government’s demand that they create “exchanges” where health insurance must be purchased.

Arizona has already discovered that the federal government will not permit its law enforcement authorities to participate in protecting its border with Mexico despite the havoc illegal immigration has wreaked on that State. Other States have encountered the same response.

America’s older generation, covered by Medicare, will discover that panels of bureaucrats will determine the extent of the health care they can receive. They will discover as those in England’s health system that the wait to be admitted to a hospital can result in death.

The younger generation will suffer as well. As Paul T. Conway, the president of Generation Opportunity, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to mobilize young adults who are dissatisfied with the status quo to create a better future for themselves, has said:

President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history. It will be paid by young Americans whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths.”

“Young Americans,” said Conway, “know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation—over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals.”

Young, old, and all other Americans will wake now to an America that they have not known, nor ever conceived could exist; a nation in which the rule of law no longer is a guarantee of the Constitution’s limits and separation of powers.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

The big day – Tea Party Nation

The big day – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Today is the big day.  In a couple of hours, the Supreme Court will announce the long awaited Obamacare decision. 

 The Court will take the bench at 10 AM Eastern Time and will have a few matters before it gets to Obamacare.  Since it seems likely that the decision is being written by Chief Justice John Roberts, it looks like it will be the last decision announced.

What will happen?

 No one knows for certain, other than the Justices and a few of their staff, what the decision will be.  I’m going to go out on a limb and make a couple of predictions.

 The most important part of the law is what we call the Individual Mandate.   That is the order that we must all buy Obamacare Insurance.  Kiss it good-bye.  It is gone.

 The five conservative Justices greeted that law with skepticism when it was argued and it seems to have gone down hill from there.   Some of the liberals were not too thrilled with the Individual Mandate either.  Both Breyer and Sotomayor seemed skeptical as well.

 The Individual Mandate will go down.  It will be either 6-3 or 7-2 to strike down the individual mandate.

 With the Individual Mandate gone, what happens to the rest of the bill?  In legal terms that is called severability.  Law makers try to put provisions in bills like this that say if one portion of the law is struck down the rest of the law survives.

  That is true to a point. 

 The Justices have to decide among other things, if the portion of the law that was struck down, in this case, the Individual Mandate, is so crucial to the law itself, the rest of the law cannot survive.

 Obamacare is going to be totally struck down.  The decision will probably be 5-4 though it could be 6-3 with Breyer going with the conservative majority.

 Why would it be struck down?

 It is the law of the Path of Least Resistance.

 If the Supreme Court strikes down the Individual Mandate but leaves the rest of the law intact, they would then have to go through that massive bill, all 2700 pages of it and specify which parts of the bill survive and which parts are struck down as a part of the Individual Mandate.  There are also other parts of the law, such as the Medicaid expansion that could also be struck down.  The more parts of the law that are struck down, the harder it is to justify the remainder of the bill surviving.

 During oral arguments, Justice Breyer hinted at this, indicating he had not read the entire 2700 page bill. 

 If the entire 2700 page bill is struck down, the Justices do not have to go through the bill, line by line, deciding what remains.  Such a decision also wipes out the entire second round of Obamacare litigation that is coming, including the Catholic Church’s lawsuits on religious freedom grounds. 

 Justices and Judges are like anyone else.  Offer them the easy way or offer them the hard way, they will choose the easy way.

 Lawyers say, “Bad cases make bad law.”  Sometimes bad laws make good cases.  This could happen though it is unlikely.

 In a perfect world, the Court would use this as an occasion to overrule Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 case that stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution beyond all recognition and gave the Federal Government the power to do many of the things it is now doing.

 By overruling Wickard, it would set the stage for a massive roll back of the power of the Federal Government.  Regrettably, I don’t think there are five Justices on the Supreme Court who would agree to do that.

 The most pleasant surprise from today would be overruling Wickard.  However, I expect it to be a good day and I will be on the steps of the Supreme Court at 10 ready to spike the football to celebrate the triumph of freedom and liberty over the tyranny of Obama and his Party of Treason.

Administration Admits to Court: Under Obamacare, Select Group Can Get Health Care, Not Pay for It, Not Buy Insurance, Not Pay Penalty |

Administration Admits to Court: Under Obamacare, Select Group Can Get Health Care, Not Pay for It, Not Buy Insurance, Not Pay Penalty |

Donald Verrilli

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

( – President Barack Obama has justified the mandate in his health-care law that requires individuals to buy health insurance by arguing that it will eliminate free riders—that is, people who get health care (often from emergency rooms) but, lacking insurance, never pay anything back into the health-care system.

“So that’s why the individual mandate‘s important,” Obama explained in a speech on Aug. 15, 2011.

“Because the basic theory is, look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can’t be a free-rider on everybody else,” said Obama. “You can’t not have health insurance, then go to the emergency room, and each of us, who’ve don the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you. That’s not fair. So, if you can afford it, you should get health insurance just like you get car insurance.”

However, in the Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Samuel Alito forced President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, to admit that under Obamacare these free riders will not be eliminated despite the individual mandate.

For an elite group—including people eligible for Medicaid who don’t sign up for it and people whose health care expenses exceed 8 percent of their income—the Obamacare mandate is no mandate and the penalty is neither a penalty nor a tax because they are not required to pay it, period.

Under Obamacare, Verrilli conceded, these people can continue to receive free health care care, not sign up for health insurance, not sign up for Medicaid, and not pay a penalty.

Here is an exchange that took place during today’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court in which Verrilli explained this part of the Obamacare law:

Justice Sam Alito: Sub-section A says directly, “an applicable individual shall ensure that the individual has the minimum essential coverage.” And you are saying it doesn’t really mean that, that if you’re not subject to the penalty, you’re not under the obligation to maintain the minimum essential coverage?

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: That’s correct. And we think that is what Congress is saying, both in the provision I just pointed to, Your Honor, and by virtue of the way — by virtue of the way the exemptions work. I just think that’s the — reading this in context, that is the stronger reading of the statute.

Chief Justice John Roberts: Suppose it makes it easy for the government to drop the other shoe in the future, right? You have been under the law subject to this mandate all along. You have been exempt from the penalty, so all they have to do is take away the penalty.

Verrilli: I don’t — I don’t think so, Mr. Chief Justice. I don’t think it makes it easy for the government in the future. We think this is the fairest reading of the statute, that the — that the -you cannot infer from the fact that someone is exempt from the penalty, that they are still under an obligation to have insurance. That’s just not the fairest reading of the statute.

Justice Elena Kagan: Could I–

Alito: I’m sorry, go ahead.

Kagan: The nature of the representation you made, that the only consequence is the penalty, suppose a person does not purchase insurance, a person who is obligated to do so under the statute doesn’t do it, pays the penalty instead, and that person finds herself in a position where she is asked the question, have you ever violated any federal law, would that person have violated a federal law?

Verrilli: No. Our position is that person should give the answer “no.”

Kagan: And that’s because—

Verrilli: That if they don’t pay the tax, they violated a federal law.

Kagan: But as long as they pay the penalty—

Verrilli: If they pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.

Justice Stephen Breyer: Why do you keep saying tax?

Verrilli: If they pay the tax penalty, they’re in compliance with the law.

Breyer: Thank you.

Verrilli: Thank you, Justice Breyer.

Breyer: The penalty.

Verrilli: Right. That’s right.

Alito: Suppose a person who has been receiving medical care in an emergency room — has no health insurance but, over the years, goes to the emergency room when the person wants medical care -goes to the emergency room, and the hospital says, well, fine, you are eligible for Medicaid, enroll in Medicaid. And the person says, no, I don’t want that. I want to continue to get — just get care here from the emergency room. Will the hospital be able to point to the mandate and say, well, you’re obligated to enroll?

Verrilli: No, I don’t think so, Justice Alito, for the same reason I just gave. I think that the — that the answer in that situation is that that person, assuming that person — well, if that person is eligible for Medicaid, they may well not be in a situation where they are going to face any tax penalty and therefore—

Alito: No, they are not facing the tax penalty.

Verrilli: Right, right.

Alito: So the hospital will have to continue to give them care and pay for it themselves, and not require them to be enrolled in Medicaid.

Verrilli: Right.

Alito: Will they be able to take this out and say, well, you really should–you have a moral obligation to do it; the Congress of the United States has said, you have to enroll? No, they can’t say?

Verrilli: I do think it’s–I think it’s certainly fair to say that Congress wants people in that position to sign up for Medicaid. I think that’s absolutely right. And I think the statute is structured to accomplish that objective; but, the reality still is that the only consequence of noncompliance is the penalty.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor: General, but I thought the people who were eligible for Medicaid weren’t subject to the penalty. Am I wrong? I could be just factually wrong.

Verrilli: Well, it all–the penalty is keyed to income.

Sotomayor: Yes.

Verrilli: And it’s keyed to a number of things. One is, are–are you making so little money that you aren’t obligated to file a tax return. And if you’re in that situation, you are not subject to the penalty. It’s also if the cost of insurance would be more than 8 percent of your income, you aren’t subject  to the penalty. So there—there–there isn’t necessarily a precise mapping between somebody’s income level and their Medicaid eligibility at the present moment. That will depend on where things are and what the eligibility requirements are in the State.

Sotomayor: But those people below—

Verrilli: But as a general matter, for people below the poverty line it’s almost inconceivable that they are ever going to be subject to the penalty, and they would, after the Act’s Medicaid reforms go into place, be eligible for Medicaid.