Well, the question probably is moot, since it looks like we'll be going over the cliff whether we want to or not, since Obama seems determined to stick to a deal that the Republicans can't possibly accept.

On the other hand, ironically, the very absurdity of Obama's deal probably will help Republicans to stick together.  One would think, or at least hope, that even a Tom Cole, willing to raise the top tax rate, would be insulted by the miniscule spending cuts, and new spending demands, that Obama wants in exchange.

Yeah, that Bill Clinton.  One of my biggest disappointments was, at that time, seeing Clinton's approval rating tank, Republicans on the verge of an enormous victory - and then, 24 hours before Clinton was about to cave, then-Majority Leader Bob Dole caved, first, pulling the rug out from under Newt Gingrich.  Since then, I've tolerated moderate Republicans when necessary, such as when we need to win Senate or House seats in a heavily Democratic state, but I no longer respect them.

Probably not because (a) it could actually work and (b) most House Republicans are as dense as a shale oil rock.  But hey, I can dream, can't I?

Arguments are irrelevant; someone needs to bring a case.  The Pacific Legal Foundation has.  But remember how long it took the states' ACA case to reach the Supreme Court and then we had to wait months for a decision.  The case will get there, eventually, probably have to be heard in a lower court, first.

The more important question is whether the Supremes grant certiorari.  If they do and reject the Foundation's argument, I will look forward to reading their reasoning.

But again, I'm not a lawyer.  I really, really would like Epstein/Yoo to weigh in on this.

Interesting argument, but a farm bill is not a tax bill.  And if the House "gutted" that bill and sent an empty shell, then the individual mandate/tax was not in it.

The problem with this argument - and why (though, of course, I could be wrong) I doubt the Supreme Court, or at least the conservative justices, would reject it is because accepting that ruling would not be a "one-off" applied only to Obamacare.  Once that door is open, the Senate could use the same maneuver on any tax bill and essentially "gut" the constitutional requirement that tax bills originate in the House.  Indeed, that was the logic by which the Court rejected the government's Commerce Clause argument.

Me, too!  Are you reading this, Mr. Epstein?  Mr. Yoo?  Could one or both of you weigh in with your own posts?  Could someone reading this contact them?  Troy?

I think some of us are being too hard on Roberts.  He's a judge.  He probably read the mandate and ruled on the text, without looking at which House enacted it first.

As for being "incomplete and/or erroneous," one of the more dismaying parts of the oral arguments, to me, was some of the liberal justices'  attempts to rescue the government's lawyer by suggesting alternative arguments whenever his own argument was weak. Should Roberts have done the same for plaintiffs' lawyer?

Anyone wanting the Supremes to reverse Roe v. Wade had better hope that the Supremes can and will rehear a case if someone raises a new argument.

Given how much he must have been paid, that's a very good question.  But I think that, like most of us, he was surprised by the Roberts opinion and never even imagined, let alone anticipated, it.

And indeed, the jurisprudence underlying the Roberts opinion is unique - enough so that I'm thinking of writing a separate post on it.

The federal courts are not the Supreme Court.  The Supremes decide constitutionality and this is a clear case, with no gray areas for the Court to interpret. If the plaintiff argues that a tax is unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House, as the Constitution unambiguously requires, then the only question is whether it originated in the House or not.

The government should not put much hope in claiming that the "tax" is an income tax. That the IRS collects the money, as it collects the voluntary contribution for funding presidential campaigns does not make it an income tax. Were the Court to accept that argument, then Congress could transform any tax into an income tax simply by tasking the IRS with collecting the money.

Have to disagree about Roberts.  I read the opinion and, however reluctantly, agreed with his reasoning. I would have to reread the oral arguments to be sure, but I believe that the government claimed that the mandate was a tax.  If it did, then it's unfortunate that the states' lawyer (nor any of the countless amicas briefs?) did not argue that if the mandate is a tax, then it's unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate, not the House.

What happens next, I can't predict, but given the split in the original ACA decision, I would guess that the four conservative justices who wanted to strike down the law would supply the four votes needed to hear the Pacific Legal Foundation case - with, perhaps, Roberts supplying a fifth - perhaps after kicking himself for not checking the ACA's legislative history in the first place.  And the logic, at least to this non-lawyer, is so airtight - either the mandate originated in the House or it didn't - that the Foundations odds of prevailing, to me, look pretty good.

And after WWII, the U.S. formed a "separate defense organization," NATO, that excluded China - and still does.

What would it have said about U.S. military power, had NATO declined to join NATO and turned around and formed its own defense alliance to exclude America and include China.  Would that not be a strong signal that Europe strongly viewed China as a rising power and America as a declining one?

What if all of NATO's members left to form a new organization that excludes the United States, not from a "nationalistic" desire to have a Europeans-only organization, but because the U.S. had allowed her military to deteriorate to the point that we became so militarily weak that we were no longer militarily strong enough that it made sense to include the U.S. in a military alliance and indeed might even have become a burden?  Would you not be concerned?

Now imagine an "economic alliance" in which the U.S. had allowed her "innovativeness," economic vitality and her currency to deteriorate to the point where we were no longer economically strong enough...  Would that not worry you, too?

And it's a Regional - not Asian - Comprehensive Economic Partnership. But assume that it is. NATO is a "European Defense Partnership" in which U.S. participation is vital.

And Chicago could be a best case scenario.  If we don't change course, America cold become Detroit; one might argue that California is well on the way.  

I'm Detroit born and bred; I know whereof I speak.

While Obama remains in office, Benyamin Netanyahu is the leader of the free world, as far as I'm concerned.

I would settle simply with making John Bolton Secretary of State.

Yes, and today, Germany and Japan are peaceful and prosperous.  And the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, since the Israelis were prevented from achieving a similar victory...?