[Talisker]

If Congress calls a charge a "penalty" then the Court can only consider whether or not that penalty is in accord with the Constitution. The Chief Justice cannot change the word penalty to the word "tax" to make the law valid. The Chief Justice cannot say in effect "you little boys and girls in Congress should have called this penalty a tax, so I'll change it to a tax for you."

You're right, he can't.

And he didn't.

In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:

The penalty provided by this section ... shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips - he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be ... assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. ...any reference in this title to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: "The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it "in the same manner as taxes."

Let's see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes" after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) - which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes."

Wow, that's a radical ruling.

And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say "use that."

So why weren't Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?

People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is "legislating from the bench" when he simply repeats back pre-existing tax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple - no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been "destroyed." Yet they're ready to fight a "revolution" over it!

A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won't read?

If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn't point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that's what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn't that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?

Maybe that's why he's Chief Justice - he gets to read the actual laws. Maybe all the other Justices have to listen to the media to find out how they should rule.

How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

[Bigun]

People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is "legislating from the bench"...

Because that is EXACTLY what the majority did in this case despite your very hair splitting protestations to the contrary! As the referenced article says "If a majority of the Justices believe the individual mandate isn't authorized by the commerce clause upon which the law is based, then any requirement for insurance purchases is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if Congress could have made the requirement under another provision of the Constitution. If Congress calls a charge a "penalty" then the Court can only consider whether or not that penalty is in accord with the Constitution. The Chief Justice cannot change the word penalty to the word "tax" to make the law valid."

[Paladin2]

"The question here is whether Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whether to participate in the new Medicaid expansion. Unless it is “evident” that the answer is no, we must leave the rest of the Act intact. Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932). We are confident that Congress would have wanted to preserve the rest of the Act."

Congress knowingly left a severability provision out of the Act. Roberts should know better unless he was in collusion with Zer0, Pelosi and Reid.

[Bigun]

You shouldn’t worry however since apparently there isn’t anyone currently in congress with the stomach to take on the out of control judiciary.

[Paladin2]

"...another respect. What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

That clear principle carries the day here."

Roberts goes against the Constitution and the will of the People.

[Macoozie]

Your take on the court's (Robert's) view of that section of tax law is 180 degrees out of phase.
If UN-CONSTITUTIONAL penalties disguised, referred to or otherwise enabled as "taxes" are in the tax code, then the referred to tax code should be invalidated as unconstitutional. This should have been an opportunity to invalidate that section of the "tax" code used in the POTUS argument referring to penalties Joined with the invalidation of the commerce clause argument this would have driven a stake into the heart of this un-_odly assault on all Americans.
Upholding Obamacare by referencing an unconstitutional provision is an impeachable offense. Roberts has failed to be constrained by his oath of office.
The SCOTUS is sworn to uphold the US CONSTITUTION, not the existing tax code.