Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[Sam Spade]

As I posted earlier in another thread, the government's commerce clause argument is stupid, and thus doomed to fail. 

I've read through the taxing clause argument too, and I think the weight of precedent is pretty strongly on the side of it not being a tax.  Doesn't mean that can't change.

Which leaves the necessary and proper clause.  Which I think stands a reasonable shot.  Arguing it, though, probably means you're saying health care law is void if you're wrong.

Anyway, this decision today (as opposed to the VA one) will push it up to the SC quite quickly.

[Sam Spade]

The real surprise for me was how serious Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito took the argument of striking down the whole law.  I expected yesterday because of the complete lack of a proposed limiting principle, and the complete lack on the part of the government to try and put forth one (whether by design or by intellectual laziness, who knows), when the question of individual rights is addressed, which will always pique Kennedy's interest, because there is a big question there.

I am still at 50-50 either way, but based on oral argument, if you put a gun to my head, I'd say it gets struck down.  I presume not to assume that this occurs - remember it is only oral argument - but if you take time to ask questions that presume a certain result, it must mean you at least take the result seriously.

[Sam Spade]

You guys I think are making a policy argument rather than a legal one. And SS is a tax.

Yep.