““I’ve wondered this too.. Could be grounds for another lawsuit headed to SCOTUS since Roberts “changed” what 0bamacare is.”
Seems that way to me.... If the current law has to be changed to make it constitutional, then how can it be valid now? “
Lawyers don’t have to be consistent exactly. They can make shot gun arguments, tossing everything out that might persuade a judge — saying something like: Look we don’t think that this is a tax, but if you are persuaded that it is, then that would be another reason it is within the powers of the Federal government to pass this bill.
They give a menu of arguments hoping one will stick.
The problem that Rush is pointing out as I write is that the courts can’t rule if a tax is illegal until someone has paid it and no one has paid Obamacare yet (conveniently to be implemented in Obama’s second term).
So, on the first day of arguments they said it is not a tax so that the case could go ahead. Seems like that should have been grounds for Robby to drop the taxation powers argument.