[KevinB]

Because the unprincipled, anti-constitutional wimp Roberts is afraid that the court might be seen as “political”, so he’ll bend over backwards to sustain Obamacare, no matter how he has to contort it to do so. He’s already proven that.

I don't agree with your characterization of Roberts, but since he has already proven that the court is not political he won't need to do it again. (I know I'm also in the minority on this one, but I believe he was right the first time.) This is a much easier case because it will be determined by the clear meaning of the words and people, regardless of political persuasion, can understand that. In addition, Gruber's own words have given the Court cover.

[TBP]

Actually, he proved nothing of the sort. He proved that the Court is susceptible to political and personal pressure.

He was absolutely wrong in the first case. There is no way to spin this law as constitutional. he had to rewrite it to make it “fit”. Simply put — a penalty is NOT a tax.

Furthermore, he has shown his determination to save this bad law at all costs.

[TBP]

Roberts is an unprincipled, anti-constitutional wimp.