[AndyJackson]

we don’t yet know the full ramifications. Perhaps this massive piece of legislation is, indeed, constitutional, but just bad law. The courts aren’t supposed to write law. Roberts tossed bad law back at the people responsible for it...I’m hearing that, because he ruled it a tax, it is now a budgetary/financial matter, which can be amended or repealed through reconciliation, which can be done by a plurality of 51 senators, not the 60 super majority.

While we cannot know the full remifications, we do know some of them, namely that it is now constitutional to compel an action or punish a non action by putting a tax on it. Can we compel you to vote socialist by putting taxes only on those who vote Republican? Why not under this idiotic decision?

[Alberta's Child]

Can we compel you to vote socialist by putting taxes only on those who vote Republican? Why not under this idiotic decision?

That's the right argument, but for a different legal action. For the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the hypothetical case you describe, the legal action would have to be brought by a plaintiff who suffered harm because he was taxed in this manner. No such plaintiff exists in this case (yet), because the mandate hasn't taken effect yet.

This particular Federal case only involved the legal action filed by the Attorneys General of those 28 states. It was, by definition, a very "hyopthetical" case because none of the applicable ObamaCare provisions that were under dispute has even taken effect yet.

Heck, I would even suggest that these legal challenges were filed prematurely -- because there's always a possibility that ObamaCare could be altered, overturned, or completely de-funded by Congress before anyone is ever subject to these individual mandates.

I wonder if Mark Levin has any take on this. I love the guy's legal analysis, but there are a lot of legal angles to ObamaCare that haven't even been brought into the cold light of day yet.