So, I see articles like this one:
Memo to Mitt Romney: Obamacare is a tax because the Supreme Court rewrote the law to make it one. The Supreme Court did not uphold Obamacare’s individual insurance mandate as a tax.
This is a difficult legal distinction to explain, but one that matters nonetheless.
In Obamacare, the mandate was called an “individual responsibility requirement.” To “save” the rest of Obamacare, the Supreme Court deleted the “requirement” part. So the mandate is gone. What’s left is a tax.
And conservatives and libertarians need to stop agreeing with progressives that his ruling gave Congress a green light to impose economic mandates under its tax power. It didn’t.
And I think, how can you keep analyzing the actions of the Supreme Court (or any branch of the government, really) like they have to adhere to some kind of coherent earth-logic? They don’t.
Look at the first sentence of the above quote where it says, “…the Supreme Court rewrote the law…” Nowhere in law or precedent does the Supreme Court have the authority to write law, and yet that is what they did.
So now we propose to predict what they’ll do in the future according to the boundaries defined by “difficult legal distinctions”? Ba-hahahahahahaha!