[SamuraiScot]

" It’s finished even before the Senate meets in January, my prediction."

I sincerely hope you're right, but I've already seen Roberts in action on this. It did not inspire confidence.

Here's a hypothesis: Justice Roberts is not a man of principle, but a craven dork. He and several other justices watch political winds (which should be irrelevant to their work) closely—because they are desperate to maintain their influence. They stand to lose influence in a downward spiral if they pick a fight with another branch of government and lose.

If that's the case, a second hypothesis would be: The "tax vs. penalty" case that went to the Supreme Court before? That was then. ZeroCare was on the ballot last week, and lost big. Even if they tried to prop up ZeroCare again at this point, it's dying of many other self-inflicted wounds. Without taking it on directly as unconstitutional, they may let its police-state funding be crippled and let the whole thing die slowly in another room somewhere.

[Cboldt]

Right on the money. SCOTUS retreated from constitutional principles when FDR threatened to pack the court, adding members until his political view would obtain the satmp of approval from the Supreme Court. The Court is essentially a super-legislature now.

[ctdonath2]

There is another hypothesis:
Roberts is playing a long game on this. Having made clear the “it’s a fine” justification is an abject failure, he suggested and allowed the “it’s a tax” ruling because the general issue would return on that basis, at which point a solid checkmate totally destroys it. Not doing so would have established mushier conditions whereby 0care would have survived further assault.

One does not join SCOTUS by being stupid. Misguided, perhaps, but not stupid.

[rodguy911]

Nahhh... its all about Roberts trying to appease his ol’ lady and getting caught playing the game dirty.