ObamaCare vs Supreme Court: Day 1

I do find it ironic that one of the best sources in the general media (i.e. supposedly un-biased, not the obviously conservative or liberal outlets) comes from the UK.

Here is the Guardian's reporting on day 1.

So, what was day 1 about? Real simple: can the court make a decision on ObamaCare before any of the penalties are collected? This comes out of the much older Anti-Injunction Act which says that for a tax to be challenged in court, it has to have started being collected first.

Which means that the government has to argue for purposes of today only that the penalty for not having health insurance is not a tax. But, come tomorrow when they look for justification for how they can require all persons to have health insurance, they will likely make the argument that this is indeed a tax. Double talk basically.

"Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," said Alito. "Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax." 

The result after today is the court has decided to accept the position that this is indeed a penalty. Which means the fight goes on! Tomorrow will be about whether the US Government even has the right to impose this mandate on all of the populace. If it does, there is a very dangerous precedent as we have no idea to what extents this will eventually be taken. The Constitution was written specifically to severely limit the power of the federal government which, if you have taken a few moments to consider what this means for individual freedoms, is something ALL people should want regardless of creed. Or race. Or sex.

Wednesday will decide the implications of removing the individual mandate and whether ObamaCare can stand without this. As expected, there is much double talk regarding this little piece also.

Today's transcript from the Supreme Court website

and

Today's audio from the Supreme Court website