[d2bets]

It will be used against Obama, but its completely disingenuous if you actually read the ruling, posters like DwightScrute will seize upon this and post posters to that effect.

Here is what Justice Roberts actually said though. He said, even though Congress did not justify the mandate as a tax, and even if they don't think its a tax, all that matters is its effect. If it acts like a tax, its a tax, full stop, even if Congress and the President didn't want it to be.

So therefore Obama can be completely right in saying that he doesn't believe its a tax, and he can have not intended it as a tax, but instead as something entirely different, but as long as it operates as a tax, its constitutional.

This is further confirmed by the anti-injunction part of the ruling where Roberts stated that Congressional intent matters for purposes of anti-injunction. Anti-injunction rules do not apply in this case according to him because Congress did not label or intend the individual mandate to be a tax.

So again, the ruling stated, the individual mandate was not intended to be a tax, but acts like a tax and is therefore a proper exercise of the taxing power.

Its also pretty funny because the court's conservative wing does not believe the individual mandate is a tax, and therefore voted to strike it down. So on the one hand you have conservative elected officials who will now make the argument that individual mandate is a tax, and on the other you have conservative jurists who will make the argument that it is not. Conversely the courts liberal wing has made the argument that the individual mandate is a tax(+Roberts) and the liberal elected officials will make the argument that it is not.

What Dwight's poster should more accurately say is, "Obama: this is not a tax" Roberts + 2 justices nominated by him + 2 nominated by another Democrat, "it doesn't matter if you think its a tax, it operates like a tax so its covered under the taxing power".

Interesting observations, Shadius.

I haven't yet read the opinion, but just thinking about it, it is a tax. Those who say you are required to buy health insurance are wrong. You can instead choose to pay a tax. In reality, the 'mandate' is a tax. It is a tax you can avoid if you purchase health insurance (as most would), but from a legal standpoint ultimately it is a tax. It would be interesting to go back over the briefs and oral arguments as it relates to the 'is this a tax' question.