[Alberta's Child]

After the last USSC decision I predicted that ObamaCare would eventually be successfully challenged in a legal case, but on completely different grounds than the original lawsuit. That legal action was based entirely on the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the Tenth Amendment, while there are a number of additional legal challenges in the works that are based on different legal arguments. This is one of them.

The interesting aspect of this story is that Obama's Justice Department may be tipping its hand a bit by allowing this challenge to go through. The Court originally refused to hear the arguments because the specific provisions of ObamaCare that Liberty University is challenged haven't been implemented yet. If the Justice Department is agreeing to have this case heard now, it might mean that they believe ObamaCare stands a better chance of being upheld in the current Supreme Court term than in a future term.

This might mean they don't expect Barack Obama to be nominating the replacement for the next retiring Supreme Court justice.

[SnakeDoctor]

I would’ve challenged it on the basis that a tax bill must originate in the House. Since Roberts rule this damn thing is justified under the taxing authority ... then it should be subject to the Constitutional limitations on tax bills.

But, ultimately, it’ll have to go through Roberts again. If he can make-up a ruling that this is a justified as a tax ... he can just as easily make-up one that it is a tax for the purposes of his last ruling, but not a tax for the purposes of the Constitutional provision that “tax bills must originate in the House”.

Such is the nature of rogue justices that make-up the law as they go along.

SnakeDoc