Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[TJ in Oregon]

The sharp disagreement rate will go up no matter what the court rules because this issue is so polarized. I don't think you can necessarily conclude anything from what Ginsburg said. The closest thing she seems to give to a tipoff was that she did make it sound as though the individual mandate was in serious trouble:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But then again even that may sound completely different depending on the context.

[TJ in Oregon]

I thought that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to rule on whether a tax is constitutional until it takes effect? If the mandate is a tax than shouldn't the suit have been dismissed and need to be reargued in a couple years?

[TJ in Oregon]

I thought that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to rule on whether a tax is constitutional until it takes effect? If the mandate is a tax than shouldn't the suit have been dismissed and need to be reargued in a couple years?

Ah, there is a distinction (the reasoning isn't mine, of course - I am not clever enough). The constitutionality is decided based on what this truly is, ignoring the labeling the Congress chooses to provide - a tax. But the prohibition on ruling pro/contra constitutionality of taxes not yet in effect is based on a statute and the Congress can choose to word the statute as it likes. It prohibited ruling on constitutionality not of taxes, but only of things it chooses to call taxes. Hence, this is a tax for the purposes of a constitutional argument, but not a tax for the purposes of this particular statute

Wow that was a total BS contradiction of calling it a "penalty" when applying the Anti-Injunction Act and a "tax" when considering the powers of congress. Until reading the decision I was under the impression that there was a legitimate reason for that distinction beyond basically Roberts felt like it.