In essence, what Roberts did was legislate from the bench, something that Judge Bork noted was a growing problem during his approval hearing. He also played semantics with the words "penalties" and "taxes". After twisting and turning his opinion every which way, CJ Roberts arrived at his now infamous convoluted ruling that stuck us all with this pig legislation.
The nitwit who wrote this article ignores the thousands of pages of legal analysis following Roberts' ruling that highlighted how far he had to go around the bend to make a very poor, very weak argument to allow ZeroCare to become law. Dozens of legal analysts far more educated and experienced than nitwit all agreed that Roberts had more twists and turns in his opinion than pretzel dough, but nitwit thinks he knows better.
Gee, four "nitwits" to refer to one person. Four and one, what an interesting ratio. How clever.
And "nitwit" means "fool," and fool kinda reminds me of a... a tarot deck, yeah, that's it. My, my, you have been practicing your tracings, haven't you?
BTW, I'm the person who wrote the article. And I don't want to upset you or anything, but judgin by the level of comprehension and communication skills you've shown in your posts on this thread, I seriously do not reccommend you look for legal analysis work.
May I suggest, instead, something that allows you to hit things with a large hammer? As long as it doesn't require you to chew gum at the same time?
According to a law professional in #14, who you, curiously enough, haven’t addressed with your insults, the article is ‘nonsense’. I concur.