#rsrh Supreme Court to rule Obamacare is a tax on middle class?

If so… um, thanks?

To sum up the argument: the Obama administration has always been two-faced over whether the individual mandate is a tax or not, due to the horrifically botched way that the Democrats shoved Obamacare down America’s throat. If the mandate is not a tax, its constitutionality becomes highly iffy; and if it is a tax then Obama lied like a cheap rug when he promised the American people that their taxes weren’t going up:

Mind you, people shouldn’t have believed that nonsense from Obama in the first place.  Politicians lie, people.Anyway, the Supreme Court is rumored to be considering holding off on judging Obamacare until 2014 because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which is an “age-old law that says courts may not halt a tax that isn’t yet being collected. ” Bolding mine, not TPM’s: I don’t think that they’re the sorts who are prepared to admit too openly that the US Supreme Court just called Barack Obama a lying son of a …gun.

As you might have guessed, I’ll be happy to take this opportunity to hammer Obama for his blatant lying.  And the best part? It’s completely independent of the issue of Romneycare, so I can.

Moe Lane


  • Aruges says:

    If the SC does this, we’re done, finished, kaput. Yeah, we get to call Obama a liar, but we already get to do that. Obamacare will still be the law of the land and damn near impossible to remove or remedy.

  • BCochran1981 says:

    Exactly. Much better to have them decide it’s unconstitutional right at election time.

  • TKlimson says:

    Remember Clinton “I did not have sexual relations” twist on words. Here’s Barack. His Administration can’t even tell us if this a tax or a penalty. Legal trickery at it’s best.

  • jetty says:

    Obama could drive his presidential limo into an unemployment line, kill dozens of people, then claim with a straight face that he reduced unemployment. And the media would cover for him.

  • Metzger says:

    Yeah, if the SC considers it a tax, then it is almost inevitable that it will pass constitutional muster.

  • K M Scane says:

    Can anyone point to SCOTUS never being pre-emptive? Case law? C’mon make a guy feel a wee bit better here!
    Isn’t Barry’s back and forth on this issue part of the Briefs filed by the States’ A G’s? Plus, the mandate to Have to Buy Something/A Product/Service, tax or not?
    C’mon, March!

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com