The politics of the ObamaCare decision (repeatedly updated with dissents)

I can’t help but think that something is afoot. This week’s rulings on the surface are disastrous. When you get into the weeds, though, you see subtle legalities that only work in favor of a) getting rid of obama, and b) paving the way for future liberal political and legal defeats.

Still, I cannot see how you can argue that a) you can tax someone for commercial non-activity and b) a tax, that originated in the Senate is constitutional.

Again, this argument is false. First, because it can always be recast as an Income Tax (eventually it will, beyond doubt.) In that case, every aspect of Clause 9 is swept away by Amendment XVI.

Second, the Court has already held in its ruling that there will be no such reconsideration. The decision specifically addresses the question of why the Court ruled on a tax matter when no one with standing to sue had brought a case.

Again, the majority's logic is thoroughly twisted, amateurish and opportunist. Had the Court seriously regarded your argument (and they should have, in light of the ruling which holds the mandate to be a tax) they would have refused to grant cert in the first place. They did not, and now they have said they are not going to accept arguments for standing.

“Gun confiscation”? Yes, for those who can’t afford the $50,000 gun tax. It’s perfectly within the power of the feds now.

How about a conservative gun tax? The next conservative majority can enact or deem passed a penalty of $100 per year for anyone legally permitted to own firearms who does not possess a firearm of at least .38 cal, with compatible ammunition in the home. We can call it the Citizen Protection and Affordable Policing Act. Since unarmed citizens are a factor in increasing crime, this tax on a failure to participate in the firearms marketplace simply encourages them not to shift the costs of defending their lives and property onto other taxpayers. Since the fine is not so large as to be coercive, it's constitutional - Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan just said so! Ginsburg even wrote that the commerce clause would permit this regardless of the size of the fine if it's in what Congress decides is a good cause. [Note: I find this idea repulsive as serious legislation, but I'd love to see liberal heads explode when it's introduced in Congress.]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.