And Obamacare was both a tax (not a fee) and at the same time a fee (and not a tax) ... in the same SCOTUS decision. Many of them are untethered from principles and they find ways to get the result they want. There is zero question that Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor will support Trump regardless of the merits of the evidence. I’d put money on that.
Just had to fix something:
There is zero question that Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor and Roberts
You mean Biden, right?
That’s kind of the definition of what’s taken out of your paycheck for social security. A tax (its called a tax!) and a fee that’s used to fund the retirements of those retired.
(And before a big discussion starts about social security, no you don’t own what’s taken out. There have been at least two USSC cases that say you have NO property rights in social security. If you did it could be counted as one of your assets and you could leave it to your heirs. You can’t so no its not yours. It goes right out the federal door to fund those retired.)
A lawyer friend who likes reading “legal reasoning” thinks that’s the legal reasoning that Robert’s used in crafting his opinion. He doesn’t think its a valid argument but he thinks that’s the model. (He also thinks that SS is really unconstitutional even though its withstood several USSC challenges!)