Tomorrow the US Supreme court will announce its decision regarding the so called “Affordable Care Act”.
Intrade at this point suggests a 75% likelihood that the individual mandate will be struck down.
Obviously insider traders on intrade have a lot more information than I do on what may be going on behind closed doors.
But my perspective, regardless, is this:
If the mandate were to be struck down I think this would pose an unprecedented blow against the expansion of the size and scope of intrusion of federal government powers into the lives of the citizenry.
So far, by and large, the US Supreme court has always served the exact opposite purpose and I’d be completely surprised if they were to decide against the law in question here.
In fact, I would not be surprised at all if this whole matter of the individual mandate being challenged in court were to serve the exact opposite purpose in the end, namely the complete and official legalization of any kinds of government mandates coming down the pipe in the future.
If the law is upheld, I suggest paying particular attention to the dissenting opinions.
As Eugene C. Holloway pointed out a while ago:
The opinions of Supreme Court dissenters have an unfortunate and perverse way of defining the scope and import of the majority rulings of the Court. The implication of this dissent is that the Court has ruled that there is no “restraint upon unlimited appropriation by he government” using the printing press. That implicit ruling now has become the accepted and contemporary view of the unrestrained money power of the government, notwithstanding that it stands in stark contrast to the expressed opposition of those who wrote the Constitution.
The potential for more and more mandates would serve the fantasies of liberal and conservative sociopaths alike, so wouldn’t that be the most plausible and (from the standpoint of those in power) appeasing scenario to play out here in the end?