In response to:

What Will You Say Next Year, in Two Years, and in Five?

Parker01 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 7:55 AM
Well, Hugh, since you and others are elated with this notion that labeling the ACA as a tax is 'genius' perhaps you could let us know what type of tax it is? It isn't an income tax. It isn't an excise tax-(levied on purchases) and it isn't a direct tax (must be apportioned equally among the states) What type of tax is it? If it isn't any of these three types of taxes it can't possibly be constitutional. Now, Hugh, tell us all how much you like that grey lining you are mistaking for silver. All of this talk of the 'commerce clause' being limited-Think again. Ginsburg dissented from that; that means no 5 judge majority concurred on it; meaning there was no opinion of a court majority. Sorry. Try again.
Reginald10 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 5:35 PM
It's an income tax, with a 100% rebate if you buy the Government-approved Insurance. It's even "progressive", in that low-income folks have to pay less, or get a refundable tax credit applicable toward Insurance.
Reginald10 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 5:35 PM
It's an income tax, with a 100% rebate if you buy the Government-approved Insurance. It's even "progressive", in that low-income folks have to pay less, or get a refundable tax credit applicable toward Insurance.
worker Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 12:23 PM

Over at HughHewitt.com I have ventured the opinion that perhaps --just perhaps-- originalists will eventually recognize Chief Justice Robert's decision and opinion yesterday as a bit of judicial genius that will be his Marbury v. Madison --the case that at first glance seemed a win for an executive whom the then Chief Justice opposed but which was in reality a huge win for the Court and the original design of the Constitution.

We won't have even a preliminary assessment for at least four months, and even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency, the success of this...