It appears that the Supremes have rewritten the law in order to uphold it. They simply call a penalty a tax, even though it was expressly stated not to be a tax. Why? Precisely for the reasons I predicted:
The Supreme Court has vastly expanded the power of the federal government since the 1930s. In so doing, the justices have often based their decisions as much on policy as on law—and then fashioned legal justifications to back up their decisions (which, in turn, become springboards for further federal expansion). Some call this phenomenon “judicial legislation,” but we won’t get into that here. Moreover, the justices generally come from what is sometimes called the “ruling class,”—people who graduated Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.—people who have faith in “experts” and technocratic solutions to societal problems. The rulings of the Court on controversial social and political issues often reflect the views of this subset of Americans more than those of the general population (not that the opinions of either should be relevant). While polls generally show a majority of Americans opposing Obamacare, the ruling class tends to support it.
With the above in mind, I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will rule that Obamacare’s purposes are laudable, that universal coverage is equitable and necessary for the country’s future, and that since the mandate is a necessary element of making the new law work, it is constitutional. That may sound like bootstrapping, but there it is.
Never doubt me.
That’s the ballgame folks. Even if the Republicans win big in November, the law will not be repealed. The era of limited government is over. We are now a full fledged technocracy.
