Two Years On: Obamacare

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I posted.

 

You are mischaracterizing my position. You say that I am arguing that the principle of limited government "shouldn't" limit Congress in this case. I don't know if it "should" or not. I just know that it "doesn't."

 

Ah, I get it now.

Either way: I'm not willing to give up on it just yet.

 

Not true.

I may decide that I'm better off self insuring. This law won't allow that.

I might want to just purchase a high deductible policy, that covers catastrophic care. But, the law will determine what kind of policy I can and must buy.

I might not want/need a policy that covers mental health care, or other types of care. But, I'll have to pay for them anyway, because the Government thinks it knows how to spend my money better than I do.

 

The most conservative person I know - and also probably the smartest person I have ever met - clerked for Justice Thomas. He despises Obama, politically.

What he told me a couple months ago: "It's a tax."

 

Yeah, but I'm not interested in value judgments here. That's another discussion, you know?

 

And yet, that argument seems to be getting absolutely no traction in this case.

 

Not whatsoever. I'm just not going to let political double speak intrude on my analysis of the constitutionality of a statute. Hell, it would almost serve Obama right - poetic justice-wise - to have this struck down. It would be, in some ways, his own damned fault for still refusing to acknowledge that it's a tax. I suspect that they have to be pretty confident in how this will go to have the Solicitor General continuing to avoid that term.

 

Again: Oral arguments, in 99.9 percent of Supreme Court cases, are useless. Ignore the red herring.

 

I just thought it was interesting how quickly dismissive this guy, who has some insight into how the Court works, was of the idea that this could be struck down.