His decision was not Constitutional. He tried to explain it with incomprehensible ‘logic.’ Something was very wrong with that decision. Acting under a threat from the chief dictator would explain it.
He tried to pass the buck to the legislature, and the voters by inference. Unbelievable, utter illogic. Isn't the entire purpose of the court to rebuke the legislature when it acts unconstitutionally?
You're correct, and Scalia nearly needed to be restrained when speaking about his fury over Robert's change of direction.
This is why we refer to my two yr old’s boy part as his
“Chief Justice”
Assisting in the destruction of liberty and freedom for all Americans is treason. And if it was just to protect some dirty little secret he had? Then may he tremble before the God who will judge him for assisting in the dismantling of the greatest nation He ever allowed to exist.
It was by far one of the most poorly reasoned and at times contradictory decisions I’ve ever seen.
I honestly still think Roberts originally wrote the dissent as the majority opinion. When he split, the other four decided to just leave it as the now dissenting opinion (even though it reads like a majority opinion) just to stick it to Roberts.
I’ve thought this from day one.
Somebody got to him. It’s really the only thing that explains it.
The tax reason is contradicted by his own opinion that it wasn’t a tax and therefore the Anti Injunction Act did not apply.
But it was all he could do to uphold it by a thread without embracing Congressional authority or the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause.
He did manage to gut the enforcement provision by declaring that “it is not unlawful to not purchase health indurance.”
It’s clear that the original penalties for failure to purchase were ripped from the bill.
Ultimately this may be the point where the law unravels. We shall see.