This morning was the first day of oral argument in the Supreme Court on challenges to Obamacare. The audio should be available in a little while.
Today was the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, which arguably would prohibit court involvement if the mandate were viewed as a tax (something the Obama administration denied during the creation of the law, but now claims as a defense).
Via ScotusBlog, it does not appear that the Justices will buy into the administrations arguments, and will rule on the merits (caveat — oral argument questions and comments are not always a reliable indicator):
When Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., commented at the end of Monday’s first day of hearings on the health care law, “We’ll continue argument on this case tomorrow,” it seemed to have a secondary meaning even if he did not intend it. The comments and questions of the Justices during the 89-minute exchange left the distinct impression that they are prepared to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, and not push the issue off into the future. The exact route they would take was a bit uncertain, but their skepticism about taking a pass was clear.
That did not mean, of course, that they would uphold the mandate. That is tomorow’s question. But an argument that at times seemed almost to bog down in the complexity of the tax code pointed toward a refusal to bar the lawsuits that had challenged the mndate and put it before the Court this week.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.