[Discussion of Constitutionality]
Fine. Where were these winning arguments when the case actually went to the Supreme Court? Did the plaintiff's lawyers forget their notes?
“Where were these winning arguments when the case actually went to the Supreme Court?”
Well, in the first place SCOTUS’ jurisdiction over tax law is restricted until after they have been paid. So that’s out. 10th amendment arguments were made, at least implicitly. I can speak for a majority of my arguments being different than those presented in court because I am not bound by caring what the justices think, and therefore do not argue as if SCOTUS precedent, especially over the last 70 or so years, is legitimate.
This was a wacky case, as Roberts flopped last minute and the administration won on a point no one thought central. I can’t say exactly what were the arguments made against the mandate as a tax, other than that it was coercive, maybe. Anyway, like I said, lawyers argue for the judge’s ears, and often judges are tuned to anything but the actual law. And I’m not just talking about the gulf between the Constitution and precedent (see Roberts on the result of elections).