[Dilbert San Diego]

Off topic, but, I can’t wait to hear the wailing from the liberals, about the judge ruling Obamacare is unconstitutional, because they repealed the tax/penalty attached to Obamacare.

Remember that John Roberts’ upholding Obamacare was based on the penalty really being a tax. Now that this tax is gone, per Roberts’ own criteria, I would expect the Supreme Court could overrule their previous opinion.

This lower court ruling will eventually hit the Supreme Court for resolution.

I’m no attorney, but it seems persuasive. If Obamacare was originally upheld only because of the penalty/tax/compulsive payment, and that aspect of the law is gone, is the rest of it still constitutional?? We will find out.

[goldstategop]

Its unconstitutional minus the penalty.

If there’s no compulsion to buy the Obamacare insurance, the reason for propping it up has disappeared.

Time for the Rats fo go back to the drawing board.

[CottonBall]

“Now that this tax is gone, per Roberts’ own criteria, I would expect the Supreme Court could overrule their previous opinion.”

Roberts may have done himself in by mentioning that the commerce clause does not cover Obama care. The only thing that did was that he considered the penalty a tax

He won’t be able to go back and change his mind. And perhaps he doesn’t want to, I really don’t know. Wasn’t he the one that said that it wasn’t up to the courts to fix a bad law? I’m not sure if he was telegraphing that that’s what they wanted to do or not. But the fact that he was going to vote one way and then immediately changed his mind one day before the vote, makes me suspicious.

[Windflier]

If Obamacare was originally upheld only because of the penalty/tax/compulsive payment, and that aspect of the law is gone, is the rest of it still constitutional?

Congress didn't repeal the individual mandate. They merely reduced the penalty for non-compliance to zero. Any future congress can raise that penalty, which means the tax portion (and thus the constitutionality) of Obamacare remains.

This will be the position of the Supreme Court.

[RipSawyer]

I’m no attorney either but I think I understand the English language fairly well and my reading of the constitution tells me that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. I see nothing anywhere in the constitution which authorizes the federal government to meddle in health care. Of course I don’t expect to ever see my opinion upheld by the court but I doubt that my opinion will change.