To take a step back from the partisan rhetoric for a minute, now that I've had 24 hours to digest the ruling I have to say that I'm both pleased and disturbed by the Court's decision.
Way back in the days when the grass was still green, and we were discussing the ACA in another thread I stated that I firmly believed that the mandate as presented was unconstitutional. I did not, and do not, believe that the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Arguments were legitimate.
It was asked generally why the mandate and penalty was different than a tax and credit like mortgage interest and I answered. In my opinion the mandate would be constitutional had Congress either raised taxes and offered a tax credit for purchasing insurance or raised taxes and paid for health care/insurance directly. After all, the first is done all the time and so is the second.
I was determined to point out though that Congress went to great pains to ensure that the mandate was not a tax and that neither of the latter two scenarios applied. Both houses and the President spouted at every turn that "the mandate is not a tax". Fast forward to yesterday and the Supreme Court says "the mandate is constitutional because it is a tax".
In my line of work I do a lot of statutory analysis, mainly concerning specific excise/privilege taxes. I am required to give subject-matter specialist testimony in administrative hearings and court cases regarding these taxes. Quite often a statute will be vague and legislative intent will play a deciding role in the matter. We don't have appellate courts, so any district court ruling is appealed directly to the State Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court's decision will often hinge on whether the legislative committee minutes are clear enough to provide intent (since precedent prevent legislators from testifying to intent after-the-fact) or if the court will defer to Dep't of Taxation v Shetakis, which states that ambiguous tax credit statutes are to be interpreted in favor of taxability.
I am troubled by the USSC decision because on it's face it appears to have completely ignored legislative intent. It was absolutely clear from the public statements and hearings that the mandate was not a tax in the eyes of the people who voted on it. The solicitor general did argue that it was a tax, but he is an executive branch employee and cannot waive legislative intent. To me, this decision says "We don't care what you intended the law to do, we're going to reinterpret it (and essentially rewrite it) to suit our needs."
On the flip side, it was obvious that the the claims that the mandate was not a tax were blatant lies. Not only was the Supreme Court right that "it looks like a tax and smells like a tax..." in re the mandate, but some of the other provisions (like the 300% premium band disparity) were essentially a tax as well. It is gratifying that the Supreme Court called out Congress on their lies.
So, I am torn. I know that the "it's not a tax" claims were false and am happy to see the perpetrators brought to light. Yet I am disturbed because the method of reaching a decision appears to be ad hoc and ignores established jurisprudence.
Facebook
Twitter