FOR FRIDAY 3/9
The Affordable Care Act hit a glitch after its long-awaited arrival to the Supreme Court. This glitch is the Anti-Injunction Act. Before the Court can decide on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act must be dealt with.
The individual mandate requires Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. This violates the Anti-Injunction Act, which forbids lawsuits filed for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax until that tax has been paid. The Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply in this situation. He said that the mandate applies a penalty, not a tax. The challengers' lawyer agreed by saying, "his clients were challenging the mandate to have insurance, not the penalty for failing to do so."
The debate over the Anti-Injunction Act, however, is not over. Chief Justice John Roberts did not think you can separate the punishment from the crime. The article left the reader with a feeling of ambiguity about the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.
This article uses logos when it references the obstacle the Anti-Injunction Act presents for the court case of the Affordable Care Act. Ethos is used when referencing the Solicitor General and Supreme Court Justices. Each player in the scenario used a variety of fact, value, and policy claims. These claims were most likely influenced by which side of the debate the respective player was on.