Using Their Own 'Logic" Against Them

We're all aware of the convoluted reasoning that Chief Justice John Roberts used to justify his (IMO cowardly and mistaken) decision upholding obamacare. By twisting the legislation's wording and torturing the laws of logic, Rogers concluded that obamacare was actually a tax bill, and thus was constitutional.

That justification, however, is now being challenged anew. Rather than attacking the law itself (which I will go to my grave believing is unconstitutional on it's face - how can the government force American citizens to purchase a particular good or service?) a group known as the Pacific Legal Foundation is contending that:

...the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.

Take a moment to savor the delicious irony if this admittedly long-shot lawsuit prevails.

It would be ironic if the crazy legal hocus-pocus employed to make ObamaCare compatible with the Constitution became its undoing.  ”It’s a tax… no, it’s a penalty… no, it’s a tax…”

We can only hope ... and dream...