Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
Well said. I totally agree.The whole penalty vs tax thing is just typical Washington doublespeak. The more interesting angle is the reasoning Roberts used to justify allowing a law that most people recognize as an abuse of state power. What Roberts saw was that, regardless of what we choose to call it, the mandate is no different in function and form than the multitude of tax 'incentives' that Congress uses to exert power. And that striking down the mandate would make all of those other 'mandates/tax-incentives' subject to the same challenge.
More concretely, if the Court were to recognize that it's wrong for government to force us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors via the tax code, they'd be forced to acknowledge that it's also wrong to mandate that we take out home loans, or invest in 'green' energy, or have children, etc, etc.... It would unravel a critical pillar of Congressional power. THAT's what Roberts was unwilling to do.
Quoting yourself. Always a sign of serious discussion.