>...was the sound of Obamacare collapsing in on its indefensible self.
>
>2 years ago I posted The End of the Republic Thread #1456212
>
>Yesterday, like a phoenix, I saw a feather stir in her ashes.
>
>I watched with great amusement as various stories hit the wire last week about how Justices Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy would be upholding the individual mandate based on various decisions from the past. Going in to Tuesday's oral arguments, if one was so ill informed in the Constitution, one may have actually believed that one or maybe all three may come out on the side of upholding the law.
>
>3 minutes into his opening statement Solicitor General Verrilli is challenged by Kennedy "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" and a smile began to appear on my face.
>
>Then Scalia "if I'm in any market at all, my failure to purchase something in that market subjects me to regulation?"
>
>Then Roberts "the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care."
>
>Then Alito "Do you think there is a market for burial services?"
>
>Verrilli's answers were weak. More important to listeners was the way he answered: unsure, stumbling & unimpressive. After 2 years to prepare he seemed to have no defense. Not surprising given that an individual mandate is indefensible under the US Constitution.
>
>By the time Ginsburg spoke up, she was basically offering Verrilli a life line, "Mr. Verrilli, I thought that your main point is that, unlike food or any other market, when you made the choice not to buy insurance, even though you have every intent in the world to self-insure, to save for it, when disaster strikes, you may not have the money."
>
>30 minutes into Tuesday's arguments the writing was on the wall.
>
>Nearly every court watcher across the political spectrum agrees that the day was a disaster for the individual mandate, which of course makes it a glorious day for the Republic.
>
>The story today is not whether the mandate will survive, but rather whether or not the Court will strike down the entire law or just pieces.
>
>I still won't exhale until the actual decision is made but I feel a lot better about it today then I have in 2 years.
>
>My prediction, the mandate is the lynchpin and the whole kit-and-kaboodle is a goner.
>
>Transcript : http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf
>Audio : http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday

But will it really matter? It appears that they are only going to strike the mandated purchase, not the whole package. And if they do that, it will probably just be reintroduced as a tax instead, and that will be constitutional.