Today’s oral argument, the first as the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, focused on the previously obscure 1967 Anti-Injunction Act. That law prohibits challenging a tax until it has been paid, which in this case would mean no one could challenge it until 2015.
As is often the case with the Obama Regime, they’ve had a, shall we say, flexible point of view on whether it’s a tax, and on the issue of the individual mandate.
More from the Washington Post:
In the early stages of litigation over the health-care law, the Obama administration agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act barred an immediate constitutional decision. But it dropped that argument and told the Supreme Court that the “penalty” for failure to secure health insurance is not a “tax” for Anti-Injunction Act purposes.. . .
“Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax.”
That pretty much captures it.
Remember when George Stephanapolous tried to get the One to admit that his health care scheme did raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000?