tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post3642149853270382284..comments2023-07-05T10:01:57.835-05:00Comments on Ciceronianus; causidicus: Supremely Confusingciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-75126492834156799922012-07-02T11:03:39.996-05:002012-07-02T11:03:39.996-05:00I think you're right. Perhaps it would have b...I think you're right. Perhaps it would have been easier for a camel to pass through that eye in this case as well.ciceronianushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-80637920306591975032012-07-01T18:20:33.533-05:002012-07-01T18:20:33.533-05:00Good points. I'll add only that the usual case...Good points. I'll add only that the usual case is for US courts to refuse to adjudicate the constitutionality of taxes until they are actually levied/enforced. The provisions of the Affordable Care Act are bing phased in gradually, so no one is AS OF NOW required to buy insurance by federal law, or penalized (taxed) for failing to do so. Given that situation, one can make a strong case that since the court came to the conclusion this was a tax, it should have found that it not ripe for decision -- it should have said "come back to us with this in a couple of years, folks!"<br /><br />Roberts found that this is a tax, but a rather special kind of tax, the substantive constitutionality of which the court COULD decide upon. That required threading a rather small eye of the needle.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17755575167245729981noreply@blogger.com