This'n'That; March Twenty-Eighth #1;owe-bamaKare-SCOTUS

Day #1 owe-bamaKare Arguments Before SCOTUS
    Monday--March 26th--was Day #1 of the Regime's Solicitor General arguing possible merits of owe-bamaKare before the Supreme Court.  The first day's proceedings involved:
Robert Long, ( *URL below; page 3) court appointed for the Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court),
Donald Verrilli, Jr., (page 30) Solicitor General, on behalf of the Petitioners,
Gregory Katsas, (page 56) on behalf of the Respondents,
Robert Long, (page 73) rebuttal for the Amicus Curiae.
    Mr Long argued the assessment and collection of the section 5000A penalties and how the "Anti-Injunction Act (1867)" applies to the legality of said assessments and collections.  Chief Justice Roberts, the Associate Justices and Mr Long had a lengthy 'go-around' concerning possible applications of the Anti-Injunction Act (1867); what's a procedural rule; what's a jurisdictional rule as well as why a monetary item might be an assessment or a penalty but not a tax. 
    'General' Verrilli intially argues that the penalties assessed in owe-bamaKare are not a tax.  Justice Alito intimated that 'General' Verrilli would be back on Day #2 to argue that the penalties assessed are taxes.  Confused?!?  So am I!  'General' Verrilli also referenced various cases inwhich the constitutionality of said assessment, whether they were penalties or taxes.  Justice Scalia took an occasion to scold 'General' Verrilli: 
"Don't do that again (referencing Davis v. Passman).  Because I think that goes too far.  I don't think that's restraining the collection of a tax.  It's restraining the payment of a tax.  You don't want to let that bone go, do you?"
In later stages several associate justices 'ganged-up on' 'General' Verrilli and cornered him concerning welfareRATs and their use of emergency rooms for 'no-cost' health care rather than using health insurance or Medicare.  'General' Verrilli had problems justifying that while owe-bamaKare will raise revenues, the penalties are not some form of taxation. 
    Mr Katsas--at the start of his segment--delved into the conservative side of jursidictional determination.  He used 'Gonzalez v. Thaler' to buttress his argument... much to Justice Sotomayor's consternation.  Justice Brayer made two salient points: 'language is relevant' and '....taxes are the life's blood of government.' 
Justice Sotomayor--in trying to firm up the government's position--suggested that 'it (the owe-bamaKare statute) is jurisdictional except when the Solicitor General waives it.'  In my mind, that seems to put "all the eggs in the government basket!"
Chief Justice Roberts spent time--also in a 'government support' role--trying to convince Mr Katsas that owe-bamaKare mandated insurance purchases, penalties and/or taxes are a 'command.' the Chief Justice is of the opinion that if the commoner does not follow the 'command,' nothing will happen as a consequence.  Mr Katsas argued that:
"....there is a difference between what the law requires and what enforcement consequences happen to you.  This statute (owe-bamaKare) was very deliberately written to separate mandate from penalty in several different ways...."
  The discussion--on exceptions to the mandate; exceptions to the penalties; who is-who isn't--between the Chief Justice, the several Associate Justices and Mr Katsas went on for several pages, and on, and on....
This is the first time I've ever read the text of an on-going Supreme Court case, let alone one as important as the topic-at-hand!  I found it quite informative, in an argumentative way.  I suggest that everyone read the transcripts of the entire 'owe-bamaKare' arguments, no matter which side you come down on.
The long, drawn-out, interrupted arguments are quite tedious to read.  Maybe the audio version--URL also listed below--would be easier to follow.  Due to hearing problems, I haven't tried that yet.
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/26/obamacare-at-the-supreme-court-day-one-rapid-reactions/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday
* http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf
(Davis v. Passman) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/228/
(Gonzalez v. Thaler) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-895/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Injunction_Act_(1867)